United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
and Procedural Background
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). 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).
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.)
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
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.)
for Failure to State a Claim
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).
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.
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 ...