United States District Court, D. New Mexico
EARL R. MAYFIELD, Plaintiff,
JOE GARCIA, LEE HOOD; JEFFREY SCOVIL; and JENNIFER WARNERBACH, Defendants.
R. Mayfield Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility Clayton,
New Mexico Plaintiff pro se
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
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.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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. 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.
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,
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.
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.
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. In his Request for Relief,
$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
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.
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.
REGARDING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GOVERNING § 1983
CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS
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
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 ...