United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
MATTER is before the Court sua sponte under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and (6)
on the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Christopher Sanders on
June 14, 2018 (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss this case on
the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
Defendant and claims, and the Complaint is frivolous,
malicious, and fails to state a claim for relief.
Christopher Sanders is a prisoner incarcerated at FCI McKean
in Bradford, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1 at 1, 5). The allegations
of the Complaint indicate that Plaintiff Sanders was
previously incarcerated at FCI McDowell in West Virginia and
FCI Butner in North Carolina. (Doc. 1 at 1, 4). The averments
in the Complaint are largely unintelligible, but appear to
assert federal civil rights claims for vague, unspecified due
process and 8th Amendment violations, as well as
state-law claims for fraud and negligence. (Doc. 1 at 2,
¶ III). The relief requested in Sanders Complaint is for
“a recommendation not only to Philadelphia, PA 19106
court room 2609 Arelan Fisk in Judge Sanchez, but also to are
lasted President of the United States [Mr. B. Obama for a
attorney, lawyer] so one to heal me with my legal
claims.” (Doc. 1 at 3).
Complaint claims Sanders was “told to take my tort
claim to the this [sic] District Court Pete V. Domenic [sic]
United States Court House” (Doc. 1 at 3) but does not
allege any conduct by any identified individual occurring in
or connected to New Mexico. Sanders asserts that he has sent
previous filings to this Court (Doc. 1 at 2), but the Court
has no record of any prior civil or criminal filings or
proceedings involving Christopher Sanders. The Court's
research does indicate that Sanders has filed civil cases in
other federal districts, and at least some of the cases in
other districts have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
See Christopher Sanders v. United States,
No. CV 17-3593 KAM (S.D.N.Y.); Christopher Sanders v.
United States, No. CV 17-1110 (S.D. TX.)
(dismissed as frivolous); Sanders v. United States,
No. CV 17-4197 RMB (D.N.J.) (dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction); Christopher Sanders v. United
States, No. CV 17-228 JL (D.N.H.); and
Christopher Sanders v. John C. Green, et al., No. CV
14-1493-J-34 PDB (M.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff's Complaint will be Dismissed Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b):
Sanders is proceeding pro se. The Court has the
discretion to dismiss a pro se complaint sua sponte
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) if the Court determines that
the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. The Court
determines that Sander's Complaint should be dismissed
for § 1915A(b) reasons.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Section 1915A provides:
(a) Screening.-The court shall review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after
docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.-On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b). The PLRA clearly
authorizes dismissal of civil lawsuits against governmental
entities, officers, or employees upon screening regardless of
the prisoner litigant's fee status. Plunk v.
Givens, 234 F.3d 1128, 1129 (10th Cir. 2000).
Court may also dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Moreover, 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. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); 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. Oklahoma
Dep't of Human Services, 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. A claim should be
dismissed where it is legally or factually insufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570.
reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court liberally construes
the factual allegations. 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 County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10thCir.
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 v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d at 1110.
deciding whether to dismiss the complaint, in whole or in
part, the Court is to consider whether to allow plaintiff an
opportunity to amend the complaint. Pro se plaintiffs should
be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy defects in their
pleadings. Reynoldson v. Shillinger,907 F.2d 124,
126 (10th Cir. 1990). The opportunity to amend
should be granted unless the amendment would be futile.
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1109. An amendment is
futile if the amended claims would also ...