United States District Court, D. New Mexico
LUKIS J. CRUZ, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, SUSANA MARTINEZ, TAOS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS
MATTER comes before the Court on pro se
Plaintiff's Complaint and Legal Suit against Criminal
Defendant, Doc. 7, filed April 23, 2018 (“Amended
Complaint”), and on his Request for Judge, Doc. 8,
filed April 23, 2018. For the reasons stated below, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff's Request for Judge and
DISMISSES this case without
prejudice.
Plaintiff's
original Complaint asserted claims against the State of New
Mexico, Governor Martinez, and the State Court for violations
of his civil rights. See Doc. 1 at 3-5. Plaintiff
also sought to have this Court review the State Court's
judgment and appeared to be asserting a civil rights claim
against the State Court Judge. See Complaint at 2,
5. The Court dismissed the claims against the State of New
Mexico, Susana Martinez, and the State Court without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and the civil rights claim
against the State Court Judge with prejudice. See
Mem. Op. and Order at 4, Doc. 6, filed April 3, 2018.
The
original Complaint also asserted federal claims against
various “Private Parties, ” some of whom may be
state actors. See Complaint at 2-5. The Court
dismissed the federal claims against the “Private
Parties” without prejudice for failure to state a claim
because the allegations were vague and conclusory.
See Doc. 6 at 5.
The
Court, having dismissed all of the federal law claims,
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on
Plaintiff's state law claims and dismissed the Complaint.
The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint for those claims that have been dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Complaint along
with a Request for Judge.
Plaintiff's
Request for Judge, which the Court construes as a motion to
reassign this case to another judge, states in its entirety:
The Plaintiff is making request for a judge without bias nor
predjudice [sic] in the case at hand. The judge must know the
rights afforded an American and see himself or herself as
equal to all Americans and able to simply arrange a trial
where testimony can be given before an unbiased jury which
has no preferrance [sic] between the parties stated above and
make a decision based upon the charges and damage amounts
requested.
Doc. 8
at 1. The Court will deny Plaintiff's request to assign
this case to another judge because he has not asserted any
facts or law indicating that the assigned Judge is biased and
should disqualify himself. See Bryce v. Episcopal Church
in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648, 659 (10th
Cir.2002) (“a judge also has as strong a duty to sit
when there is no legitimate reason to recuse as he does to
recuse when the law and facts require”).
Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint asserts that the “State of New Mexico
is monetariliy [sic]liable for criminal activity on the part
of the judicial system as it pertains to my case.”
Amended Complaint at 3. The State of New Mexico is the only
Defendant in Amended Complaint.[1] In its Order dismissing
Plaintiff's original Complaint, the Court explained that
it did not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims
against the State, Governor Martinez, the State Court and the
State Judge (“State Defendants”), and cited Tenth
Circuit case law to support its explanation that the State
Defendants are immune from suit unless Congress abrogates the
State's immunity or the State waives its immunity and
consents to be sued. See Doc. 6 at 3-4. The Amended
Complaint does not allege that Congress abrogated New
Mexico's immunity or that New Mexico waived its immunity.
See Amended Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff argues,
without citation to any legal authority, that the State is
not immune from suits for, and is liable for, damages
resulting from civil and criminal violations of its
employees. See Amended Complaint.
The
Court will dismiss the claims in the Amended Complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff, by asking the Court to
exercise jurisdiction over his claims against the State, asks
the Court to proceed contrary to established case law from
the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. United States Judges
swear that they will perform all the duties incumbent upon
them under the Constitution and the laws of the United
States. See 28 U.S.C. § 453, Oaths of justices
and judges. The laws of the United States include the case
law of the Supreme Court of the United States and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in which this
District sits. The Court will not proceed in a manner that is
clearly contrary to case law from the Supreme Court of the
United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.
Having
dismissed all of the claims in the Amended Complaint, the
Court dismisses this case without prejudice.
IT
IS ORDERED that:
(i) Plaintiffs Request for Judge, Doc. 8, filed April 23,
...