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.

Garcia v. Cole

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

September 20, 2019

ANTHONY GARCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
ERICH F. COLE, TRUDY RED-CHASE, BARRY D. SHARER, BRADFORD J. DALLEY, SCOTT SANDEFER, KYLE DAVIS, A. SANCHEZ, M. CHAPMAN, SANDRA FIELDS, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, INC., Defendants.

          Anthony Garcia Los Lunas, New Mexico Plaintiff Pro Se.

          Sandra Fields Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.

          Rich Tedrow Farmington, New Mexico Defendant pro se.

          Erich Cole Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.

          Trudy Red-Chase Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.

          Barry Sharer Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.

          Bradford Dalley Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.

          Amy L. Glasser Potts & Associates Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorney for Defendants Scott Sandefer, Kyle Davis, A. Sanchez, and M. Chapman.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed November 6, 2018 (Doc. 3)(“Application”); and (ii) Defendants Scott Sandefer, Kyle Davis, Anthony Sanchez and Marvin Chapman's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, filed November 26, 2018 (Doc. 5)(“Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff Anthony Garcia appears pro se. The primary issues are: (i) whether Garcia is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings; and (ii) whether the Complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted. For the reasons set out below, the Court will: (i) grant Garcia’s Application; (ii) grant Defendants Sandefer, Davis, Sanchez and Chapman’s Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Garcia filed a Decree Injunction over State of New Mexico, Inc. and Causal Agent(s) for Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Relief Due to Violation of Plaintiff's 5th Amendment Rights to Due Process, Constitutional Violations, Conspiracy Against Rights, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Fraud, Unlawful Taking of Property in Disregard to Original Laws, for Violation of Equal Protection Under the Law . . ., filed November 6, 2018 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”). The Complaint states: “This Honorable Court DECREE Injunction mandate the STATE OF NEW MEXICO and Casual Agency(s) to stop any further LEGAL action.” Complaint ¶ 1, at 2. The Complaint does not allege any facts regarding the Defendants’ actions or how those actions harmed Garcia, and states: “I, Anthony Garcia, Plaintiff, Aggrieved Party, an Injured Party shall enter an amended petition with all the particulars as a Testimony in a form of an Affidavit.” Complaint ¶ 4, at 3. Garcia has not filed an amended petition.

         Garcia’s Application states: (i) his “[a]verage monthly income amount during the past 12 months” is $1, 600.00; (ii) his “[t]otal monthly expenses” are $1, 475.00; (iii) he is unemployed; (iv) he has no cash and no money in bank accounts; and (v) his daughter relies on him for support. Application at 2-3, 5. Garcia signed an “Affidavit in Support of the Application, ” stating “I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings” and declaring under penalty of perjury that the information he provided in the Application is true. Application at 1.

         Defendants Scott Sandefer, Kyle Davis, A. Sanchez, and M. Chapman filed the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, stating:

The Complaint is so lacking in any comprehensible statement of facts or claims, defendants are unable to determine what or when, if anything, they allegedly did and, if so what injury plaintiff is even claiming. As no facts have been plead, none can be accepted as true as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The only thing clear about the complaint is that it fails to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

         Motion to Dismiss at 4. Garcia has not filed a response opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

         LAW REGARDING PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS

         The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (“IFP”), provides that a district court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of ...


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.