Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Nevarez v. Ramero

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

April 16, 2018

GABRIEL JOSEPH NEVAREZ, Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM RAMERO, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ROBERT BRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Joseph Nevarez (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Gabriel Joseph Nevarez is a prisoner incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Nevarez filed his Complaint on April 4, 2018. (See id.) He asserts jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The sole named Defendant is Adam Ramero, who is alleged to be an employee of Smith's Grocery. (Id.) The allegations of the Complaint are generally incomprehensible and state as follows:

“At Smiths Grocerys injured both bottom of feet one right crooked by during escort loss of tennis shoes in back of squadron car over 2 hour in handcuff period by escort meaning at start of March on Washington D.C. Daca move by my being white ethniced . . .
Injured both bottom of feet escorting out of place of bussiness for either iether color of Day 5 March 2018 White Ethniced by how if DACA march at on Washington D.C. to rights rights March for the attend to Washington D.C. . . .
Emotitional Distress equal to $5, 000 dollars loss of Supporting Facts: Video proof Smiths Groceries 111 Coors Blvd N.W. Albuquerque NM 87121 Either Iether subpening camera video record of on March 5 2018 6-9 p.m at date on incident counter attend due to racial discrimination now.”

(Id. at 2-3.)

         FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF

         Plaintiff Nevarez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The Court has the discretion to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under either Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim should be dismissed where it is legally or factually insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) the Court must accept all well-pled factual allegations, but not conclusory, unsupported allegations, and may not consider matters outside the pleading. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989). The court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if “it is ‘patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting McKinney v. Okla. Dep't of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

         Under § 1915(e)(2)(B) the court may dismiss the complaint at any time if the court determines the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(2). The authority granted by § 1915 permits the court the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 319, 327 (1989); see also Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109. The authority to “pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations” means that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The court is not required to accept the truth of the plaintiff's allegations but, instead, may go beyond the pleadings and consider any other materials filed by the parties, as well as court proceedings subject to judicial notice. Id.

         The Court liberally construes the factual allegations in reviewing a pro se complaint. See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1992). However, a pro se plaintiff's pleadings are judged by the same legal standards that apply to all litigants, and a pro se plaintiff must abide by the applicable rules of court. Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The court is not obligated to craft legal theories for the plaintiff or to supply factual allegations to support the plaintiff's claims. Nor may the court assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

         ANALYSIS OF ...


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.