United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed January 29, 2019
(“Application”). For the reasons stated below,
the Court will GRANT the Application and
DISMISS this case without
to Proceed in forma pauperis
statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a), provides that the Court may authorize the
commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of
all assets the person possesses and that states that the
person is unable to pay such fees.
When a district court receives an application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, it should examine the papers and
determine if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a)
are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted.
Thereafter, if the court finds that the allegations of
poverty are untrue or that the action is frivolous or
malicious, it may dismiss the case[.]
Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed.Appx. 879, 884 (10th
Cir. 2010) (citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60
(10th Cir. 1962). “The statute [allowing a litigant to
proceed in forma pauperis] was intended for the
benefit of those too poor to pay or give security for
costs....” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344 (1948). A
litigant need not be “absolutely destitute, ” and
“an affidavit is sufficient which states that one
cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the
costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents
with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339.
Court grants Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff
signed an affidavit stating that he is unable to pay the
costs of these proceedings and provided the following
information: (i) Plaintiff's monthly income is $1, 274.00
in disability and food stamps; (ii) Plaintiff is unemployed;
(iii) Plaintiff's monthly expenses total $1, 027.00; and
(iv) Plaintiff has no cash and no money in bank accounts. The
Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this
proceeding because his monthly income only slightly exceeds
his monthly expenses, he is unemployed, and he has no cash or
money in bank accounts.
of Proceedings In Forma Pauperis
filed his Complaint using the form “Civil Rights
Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Doc. 1,
filed January 29, 2019. The Complaint, which is difficult to
understand, appears to assert civil rights and defamation
claims against a state-court judge, stating:
Mr. John R. Chavez and Co conspirators are of the Alien
Hispantee and New Mexico Corporation and (Not) trustees
governing or adjudicating Judis Prudence of the Law if the
lands Precedent and explicit Rights of Pari Passu and The
United State Constitutions Paramount Law of the Land: wilful
error. No. M-60-MR 2018-00360 and 00377. . . . .
City of Belen Issuance (Not) Sovereign Grand Jury indictment
* mistrial, Double Jeopardising the integraty of the Law and
end of Justice affording and Mandating 42 USC 1980-85
Compensation for Slavery Due to tyrant treason and Terror
Wiful Acts of Volition. . . . .
[Plaintiff] believe[s] that [he] is entitled to the following
relief: * as Precribed Preliminary injunction Barring
(Estoppel) invalid Proceedings and libo and slander Breach of
Contract (impeachment - En banc.); Disbarring Co.
Compensation Demand: (5) Million Dollars from the New Mexico
State treasury Without Delay, - Counter Indictment Civil
[sic] Complaint at 2-3, 5. State of New Mexico records show
that the two case numbers referenced in the Complaint refer
to cases before Judge John R. Chavez in Valencia County
Magistrate Court - Belen, with Plaintiff as a defendant
charged with harassment and use of telephone to terrify,
intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.
Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because
“state court judges are absolutely immune from monetary
damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity,
unless the actions are taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction.” Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 Fed.Appx.
725, 727 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)); Stump v. Sparkman, 435
U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (articulating broad immunity rule
that a “judge will not be deprived of immunity because
the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was
in excess of his authority”). The Complaint also fails
to state a claim pursuant to the various federal statutes and
articles of the Constitution cited by Plaintiff because there
are no supporting factual allegations. See Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)
(“conclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are ...