United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) on the Complaint for
Violation of Civil Rights filed by Plaintiff Daniel Angel
Arreola on April 3, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Court dismisses the
Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted, but will permit Arreola the opportunity to file an
Arreola is incarcerated at Northeast New Mexico Detention
Facility. (Doc. 2 at 1). He is proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis. Arreola filed his Civil Rights Complaint
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 3, 2017. Although
currently incarcerated at Northeast New Mexico Detention
Facility, his claims appear to relate to an unidentified
prison facility in Hobbs. (Doc. 1 at 1-3). Arreola names six
Defendants and alleges:
“Defendant R.C. Smith is a citizen of Hobbs New Mexico,
and is employed as Warden. . . R.C. Smith as warden is to
oversee all well being of inmates in his custody from NMDOC,
even after being notified of mistreatment he failed to fix
it, which in turn led to further abuse by prison
“Defendant J.W. Beaird is a citizen of Hobbs New
Mexico, and is employed as warden of security. . .As security
warden he oversees placement of inmates as well as to mail.
He knowingly altered and with-held mail sent to facility, as
well as failed to protect me from cruel and unusual
punishment while in custody . . .
Defendant Russle is a citizen of Hobbs New Mexico, and is
employed as corrections officer . . .As officer its his duty
to protect inmates from all forms of abuse. He instead took
advantage of his position of power and brought forth forms of
both mental and sexual abuse himself. . .
Defendant Gomez is a citizen of Hobbs New Mexico, and is
employed as grievance officer . . .As grievance officer its
her duty to have and or maintain all informal complaints and
grievances filed at facility. Some of the complaints I have
filed have yet been returned and some held up to a month
before received back. I've requested copies of past
complaints to her facility on several occasions with no
response from her at all. . .
Defendant Susana Martinez is a citizen of Santa Fe, New
Mexico, and is employed as Governor of State. . . As Governor
of State and head of prison operations in New Mexico, its her
duty to put in place training for employees and policies to
insure the well being and safety of inmates in NMDOC custody
is a priority. Lack of employee training led to abuse by
prison officials. There for duties failed by our head of
state and all under her as well failed given duties. . .
Defendant Unknown Officers are citizen of Hobbs, New Mexico,
and are employed as STIU officers. . . as officers they are
to protect from all forms of abuse. They failed such when
they themselves made sexual comments towards me and brought
forth the abuse. They failed their given duties as
(Doc. 1 at 1-3).
Standards for Failure to State a Claim
Arreola is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
on civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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
(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.
§ 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. 319, 327 (1989). 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 (10th Cir.
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 ...