United States District Court, D. New Mexico
EARL R. MAYFIELD, Plaintiff,
JOHN SUGGS DA, ATTY AT LAW JEFFREY SCOVIL, ESTATE OF DET JOHN KELLY APD, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, DA RACHEL EAGEL, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A on the Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint filed by
Plaintiff Earl R. Mayfield on December 1, 2017. (Doc. 1). The
Court dismisses Mayfield's Complaint for failure to state
a claim and as frivolous under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court also imposes a
“strike” against Plaintiff Mayfield under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
Mayfield has filed six cases before this Court in the last
two years: Earl R. Mayfield v. Joe Garcia, et al.,
No. CV 16-00805 JB/JHR; Earl Mayfield v. Tom Ruiz,
No. CV 17-00193 JCH/LAM; Earl R. Mayfield v. Ken Smith,
Warden, et al., No. CV 17-00237 RJ/CG; Earl R.
Mayfield v. Craig Cole, et al., No. CV 17-00332 WJ/KK,
Earl R. Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hospital
Administration, No. CV 17-00398 MCA/KRS, and this case,
Earl Mayfield v. John Suggs, et al., No. CV 17-01190
WJ/GBW. Each of the lawsuits involves different,
but often overlapping, claims for relief against different
defendants and correctional facilities. The Court has
received multiple, largely incomprehensible, filings from
Plaintiff Mayfield, which he often requests be filed in
multiple pending cases regardless of whether the filings are
relevant to all or even any of the cases.
filed this proceeding as a prisoner civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names, as Defendants, District
Attorneys John Sugg and Rachel Eagel, New Mexico Public
Defender staff attorney, Jeffrey Scovil, the Estate of
Albuquerque Police Department Detective John Kelly, and the
State of New Mexico. (Doc. 1 at 1). He alleges a vague,
wide-ranging conspiracy among the Defendants to illegally
arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate him. (Doc. 1 at 1-5).
Mayfield seeks “$1, 000, 000 from each def in his or
her individual capacity for each and every violation of Def
civil & const rights . . . & $10, 000, 000.00 in
monetary, compensatory damages.” (Doc. 1 at 5).
extent the Court can decipher Mayfield's submissions,
Mayfield appears to allege that he was arrested in 2012 by
Albuquerque Police Department officers, including Detective
John Kelly, based on a drug trafficking transaction involving
a confidential informant. Mayfield claims that, during his
prosecution, Detective Kelly “came clean” about
corruption in the Albuquerque Police Department in a taped
interview that was provided both to the prosecuting attorney,
John Sugg, and Mayfield's defense counsel, Jeffrey
Scovil. Mayfield contends that, before his criminal trial,
Detective Kelly was murdered and District Attorney Sugg lost,
destroyed, or concealed the taped interview as part of a
conspiracy with defense counsel Scovil, Assistant District
Attorney Rachel Eagel, Albuquerque Police Department, State
Judge Stan Whittaker, and the State of New Mexico. Mayfield
also argues that the death of attorney Mary Han (who played
no role in Mayfield's case) and the deaths of eleven
women in the unsolved West Mesa murders are also involved in
the conspiracy. (Doc. 5 at 13).
attaches several New Mexico state appellate filings to his
submissions in this case. (Doc. 5 at 15-27; Doc. 6 at 7-47).
Those documents indicate that the New Mexico appellate courts
have consistently rejected Mayfield's allegations and
have affirmed his criminal convictions. (Doc. 6 at 21-26,
38-43, 47). Last, Mayfield attaches a letter report from the
Civilian Police Oversight Agency in response to a complaint
filed by Mayfield before that Agency raising the same
allegations he makes in this case. (Doc. 5 at 84-85). That
letter report relates the Agency's investigation and
conclusions that “Mr. Mayfield presents accusations,
but does not provide any evidence to support his assertions .
. . Detective Kelly did not reveal criminal conduct or
misconduct by other APD personnel during the [pretrial]
interview . . .[t]here is no evidence to support Mr.
Mayfield's assertions that Detective Kelly was the victim
of homicide.” (Doc. 5 at 84-85).
before the Court are Plaintiff Mayfield's Motion to Amend
(Doc. 5) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 6). Both
motions are largely incoherent, seek a variety of relief, and
have numerous attachments. See Doc. 5 at 13, 15-86;
Doc. 6 at 5, 7-47. Neither motion complies with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court's Local Rules, and
Mayfield's request for summary judgment is premature.
Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122
(10thCir. 1980) (“It is incumbent on
litigants, even those proceeding pro se, to follow the
federal rules of procedure. . . The same is true of simple,
nonburdensome local rules . . ..” (citation omitted));
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 213-14 (2007) (requests
for discovery or dispositive relief are premature and
unavailable prior to the Court's completion of its
screening obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)).
Court denies Plaintiff Mayfield's Motion to Amend (Doc.
5) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 6). The Court has,
however, reviewed and considered the attachments to the two
motions in performing its preliminary review of Plaintiff
Mayfield's Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109
(10th Cir. 1991); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
Law Regarding Dismissal for Failure to State a
Plaintiff Mayfield 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). 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 (10thCir. 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 at 1109 (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.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) the Court may dismiss the complaint at
any time if the Court determines the action fails to state a
claim for relief or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C.
§ 915(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 327. See also Hall v.
Bellmon, 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. Denton, 504 U.S. at
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 amendment would be futile. Hall
v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1109. An amendment is futile if
the amended claims would also be subject to ...