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.

Jensen v. Elwell

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

July 24, 2018

NATHAN JENSEN, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN MATT ELWELL and SANDOVAL COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ROBERT C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the Complaint (Tort) filed in New Mexico State Court by Plaintiff Nathan Jensen and removed to this Court by the Defendants on December 15, 2017. (Doc. 1.) The Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6), dismisses Plaintiff's federal claims, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The Court also grants Plaintiff Jensen leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         Plaintiff Nathan Jensen is a federal prisoner with several convictions and pending charges. See No. CR 08-00682 WJ (D.N.M. 2008), No. CR 16-02694 WJ (D.N.M. 2016), and No. CR 17-02566 WJ (D.N.M. 2017).[1] At the time he filed his Complaint in this case, he was a pretrial detainee housed at the Sandoval County Detention Center. His most recent charges stem from a charged assault on a federal employee at the Sandoval County Detention Center. See United States v. Jensen, No. CR 17-02566 WJ, Doc. 22 (D.N.M. Dec. 13, 2017).

         Plaintiff Jensen filed his Complaint (Tort) in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, County of Sandoval, State of New Mexico, on October 2, 2017. (Doc. 1-2.) His Complaint names as Defendants Warden Matt Elwell and the Sandoval County Detention Center. (Id. at 1.) The Defendants removed the case from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court to this Court on December 15, 2017, on the grounds that the allegations of the Complaint are in the nature of civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) The Defendants also filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 3.)

         Plaintiff Jensen describes the nature of his action as: “Degrading, humiliating & inhumane treatment, making me shower while I was handcuffed, making me spend my hour recreation handcuffed & denied me all correspondence. That's cruel & unusual punishment.” (Doc. 1-2 at 1.) In support of his Complaint, Jensen sets out the following facts:

Every day since Saturday, January 4th, 2017 through Wednesday, January 18th, 2017 I have been forced to take showers and spend my hour recreation time handcuffed. I am locked in a cage already while I shower and I am locked in a recreation room so its not right to keep me handcuffed too. What's the point? Only to degrade & humiliate me. That's inhumane and against my rights as an inmate. They also didn't give me my property and didn't let me have incoming mail or let me send outgoing mail. When I asked why the COs said the Warden Matt Elwell said I have nothing coming and I stay cuffed when I am out of my cell. January 18th, 2017 I got everything back.

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff Jensen's Prayer for relief states:

I would like for the Court to award me $10, 000 each day I was degraded, humiliated & treated with cruel & unusual punishment. A total of $120, 000. By granting this the Warden and Sandoval County Detention Center will understand that they cannot get away with treating their detainees inhumanely, disrespectful or with no rights.

(Id. at 3.)

         Standard for Failure to State a Claim

         Plaintiff Jensen is proceeding pro se. The Court may dismiss a pro se prisoner's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 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, 547 (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.

         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 ...


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.