Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chavez v. State

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

August 27, 2019

RAMIE CHAVEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, UNITED STATES ARMY, c/o New Mexico National Guard, DONALD J. TRUMP, MICHELLE L. GRISHAM, and KENNETH A. NAVA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TO SHOW CAUSE

          WILLIAM P. JOHNSONH, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed July 18, 2019 ("Application"). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Application, DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose filing restrictions.

         Application to Proceed in forma pauperis

         The 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 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). While a litigant need not be “absolutely destitute, ” “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.

         The Court grants Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit stating she is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the following information: (i) Plaintiff's monthly income is $3, 600.00 in disability payments; (ii) Plaintiff is unemployed; (iii) Plaintiff's monthly expenses total $5, 111.00; (iv) Plaintiff has $325.00 in bank accounts and (v) Plaintiff has six persons who rely on her for support. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because her monthly expenses exceed her monthly income, she is unemployed, she only has a small amount of money in bank accounts, and six persons rely on her for support.

         The Complaint

         The Complaint asserts seven causes of action.

         Count I: Aggression and Symbolic Violence

         The allegations indicate that Plaintiff was a member of the New Mexico National Guard. Defendant Nava is the "Adjunct General of the New Mexico National Guard." Complaint at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "Nava conspired with [four other persons] to discredit and villainize plaintiff through false statements utilized to detain, then involuntarily hold Plaintiff at the Raymond G. Murphy Veterans Hospital in direct violation of Army Regulation 6000-100 1.11 b. (4)." Complaint at 3. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Nava violated, coerced others to violate or conspired with others to violate various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See Complaint at 4-5.

         The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims regarding Defendant Nava's alleged violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for lack of jurisdiction.

Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment. This Court has played no role in its development; we have exerted no supervisory power over the courts which enforce it; the rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty, and the civil courts are not the agencies which must determine the precise balance to be struck in this adjustment.

Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 140 (1953); Lips v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 997 F.2d 808, 810 (10th Cir. 1993) ("The military has its own independent criminal justice system governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice").

         Plaintiff also alleges that President Donald J. Trump made threatening statements about North Korea, Venezuela and certain immigrants. See Complaint at 5-6. The Court dismisses the claims against Defendant Trump for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff has not alleged how President Trump's statements harmed Plaintiff or what specific legal rights Plaintiff believes President Trump violated. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”).

         Count II: Violations of First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments Rights

         Plaintiff asserts "Count II: Intentional Deprivation of Constitutional Rights U.S.C. Section 1983" and for supporting facts refers to the "preceding paragraphs." Complaint at 6. Page two of the Complaint states "Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of the U.S.C. Section 1983 Deprivation of Constitutional Rights under the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, [and] Fourteenth Amendment," but does not identify the specific rights she alleges were violated. While Plaintiff alleges that she was "falsely imprisoned" and that her "rights to a fair and unbiased trial were violated," the Court does not have jurisdiction over those claims because the allegations indicate those actions occurred pursuant to military law. Complaint at 3-4.

         Count III: Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

         Plaintiff asserts a claim of "Intentional Discrimination Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984." Complaint at 6. Title VII provides that it "shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.