Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mayfield v. Garcia

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

February 28, 2018

EARL R. MAYFIELD, Plaintiff,

          Earl R. Mayfield Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility Clayton, New Mexico Plaintiff pro se


         THIS MATTER comes before the Court, under rule 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2)(B) on: (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Release From Custody, filed May 25, 2017 (Doc. 39)(“Motion”); (ii) the Plaintiff Earl Mayfield's Emergency Motion for Court Order and Exten[s]ion of Time Pursuant to State and Federal Law, filed June 29, 2017 (Doc. 45)(“Emergency Motion”); and (iii) Mayfield's Amended Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed July 27, 2017 (Doc. 46)(“Amended Complaint”). The Court: (i) denies the Motion as moot; (ii) grants the Emergency Motion; and (iii) dismisses Mayfield's Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with rule 8's pleading requirements, for failure to state a claim for relief, and as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.


         Mayfield has filed six cases before the District of New Mexico in the last two years: (i) Mayfield v. Garcia, No. CIV 16-0805; (ii) Mayfield v. Ruiz, No. CIV 17-0193; (iii) Mayfield v. Smith, No. CIV 17-0237; (iv) Mayfield v. Cole, No. CIV 17-0332; (v) Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hospital Administration, No. CIV 17-0398; and (vi) Mayfield v Suggs, No. CIV 17-1190.[1] Each of the lawsuits involves claims for relief against various defendants including correctional facilities and correctional facility officers. The Court has received multiple, largely inscrutable, filings from Mayfield, in which he frequently requests changes to all his pending cases regardless whether the filings are relevant to all or even any of the cases.

         Mayfield originally filed this case as a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint at 1, filed July 8, 2016 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”). He named, as Defendants, the New Mexico Probation and Parole Office, Probation Officer Joe Garcia, and New Mexico Public Defender contract and staff attorneys, Lee Hood, Jeffrey Scovil, and Jennifer Warnerbach. See Complaint at 1. When he filed suit, Mayfield was incarcerated at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”). See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. He alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy among the Defendants, MDC, Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office, jealous ex-girlfriends, and the Second Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico, to keep him illegally incarcerated on sentences imposed in multiple New Mexico criminal proceedings. See Complaint at 8-16. He seeks $1, 000, 000.00 in compensatory damages and $1, 000, 000.00 in punitive damages, as well as immediate release from custody, reinstatement of his bond, and various sanctions against individual Defendants. See Complaint at 7, 17-22.

         On June 2, 2017, the Court dismissed Mayfield's Complaint for failure to state a claim and struck many of Mayfield's filings as incomprehensible and because they violated rule 8's pleading requirements. See Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal at 13-14, 2017 WL 3149358, at *6, filed June 2, 2017 (Doc. 42)(“MOO”). In its MOO, the Court also granted Mayfield leave to file a single amended complaint that met rule 8's requirements. See MOO at 14, 2017 WL 3149358, at *6. The MOO provided that, in the Amended Complaint, Mayfield could assert claims arising only out of his incarceration at MDC. See MOO at 11, 2017 WL 3149358, at *6. Last, the Court warned Mayfield that, if his Amended Complaint did not meet rule 8's requirements or failed to state a claim for relief, the Court may dismiss the proceeding with prejudice. See MOO at 13, 2017 WL 3149358, at *6.

         Mayfield's deadline to file an Amended Complaint was July 2, 2017. See MOO at 11, 2017 WL 3149358, at *6. On June 29, 2017, Mayfield filed the Emergency Motion requesting more time to filed an Amended Complaint. See Emergency Motion at 1. Mayfield then filed his Amended Complaint on July 27, 2017. See Amended Complaint at 1. The Court grants Mayfield's Emergency Motion and will treat his Amended Complaint as timely.

         The allegations in Mayfield's Amended Complaint are, again, confusing. The Amended Complaint appears to assert five causes of action: (i) “Count I: Cruel/Unusual punishment”; (ii) “Count II: Aimie Hand[i]cap Act, even up to 1-9-17 - 2-1-17 the lates [sic]”; (iii) “Count III: my property was stolen”; (iv) “Claim 4: I was taken to psy appointment by 2 CO asign by Captain Hogan to Barbara Swart and Jane Doe PS *The two Cos were v[i]olation Hippo along with psy Swart [sic]”; and (v) “I was given false misconduct reports by F4 pod officer having my/ (canteen) stolen d[ue] to fake misconduct reports and because of report I was not allow[ed] to order, all on Capt. Hogan / Sgt. Jeter Wacth [sic].” Amended Complaint at 5-8. The gist of those five causes of action appear to be: (i) a cruel and unusual punishment claim for being housed in a two-man cell with three inmates for years, see Amended Complaint at 2, 5; and (ii) an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, claim for not being placed in a separate cell, as he is disabled and uses a walker, see Amended Complaint at 5.[2] In his Request for Relief, Mayfield requests:

$250, 000.00 from each & ever[y] Def[endant] in the[ir] each & individual official capacity that they be ordered to come into compliance with [the] Americans Disability Act and refrain from the all mention above Const[itutional] violations State and Fed[eral] Law violations and separate Def[endant] ask to be granted new partial with gold teeth, reimbursement of canteen loss this relief be monetary, compensatory, punitive damages. And any other relief this court deems just and appropriate/I be provide[d] a new walker all hand[i]cap inmates (rooms) with ramps also shower be made hand[i]cap access[ible].

Amended Complaint at 9. The Amended Complaint identifies Probation Officer Joe Garcia, Ron Torrez, Chief of Corrections, “Capt. Candelaria, Capt. Holgen, Sgt Guets [sic], Sgt. Owens, CO Ridell, and Sgt. Grant” as Defendants. See Amended Complaint at 1-2, 4.

         When Mayfield filed the Complaint, he was incarcerated at MDC. See Complaint at 1. He appears to have been released from MDC custody before August 30, 2016. See Letter from United States District Court to Earl R. Mayfield (dated August 15, 2016), filed August 16, 2017 (Doc. 9). Since August 30, 2016, Mayfield has filed four notices of change of address. See Letter from Earl Mayfield to Federal District Court (dated August 23, 2016), filed August 30, 2016 (Doc. 10); Letter from Earl Mayfield to U.S. District Court (dated January 30, 2017), filed February 2, 2017 (Doc. 17); Letter from Earl Mayfield to United States District Court Clerk, (dated February 2, 2017), filed February 6, 2017 (Doc. 19); Letter from Earl Mayfield to United States District of New Mexico (dated March 20, 2017), filed March 23, 2017 (Doc. 33)(“March Letter”). He has been incarcerated at Eastern New Mexico Correctional Facility in Clayton, New Mexico since March, 2017. See March Letter at 1.


         The three-year personal injury statute of limitations contained in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8 governs civil rights claims arising in New Mexico under § 1983. See Varnell v. Dora Consol. Sch. Dist., 756 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 2014)(“Varnell”). A civil rights claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its unconstitutional cause. Varnell, 756 F.3d at 1216. The injury's extent is irrelevant to the analysis, and, instead, the statute of limitations commences as soon as the plaintiff has been apprised of the general nature of the injury. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 391 (2007); Harvey v. United States, 685 F.3d 939, 949 (10th Cir. 2012). The applicable statute of limitations for Mayfield's claims under § 1983 is N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8's three-year statute of limitations.

         A pleading may be subject to dismissal when an affirmative defense, such as a statute of limitations, appears on the face of the complaint or petition. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15 (2007); Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks,589 F.3d 1091, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009). Where the statute of limitations defense appears on a pleading's face, it is properly dismissed for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.