United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Anthony Garcia Los Lunas, New Mexico Plaintiff Pro Se.
Fields Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.
Tedrow Farmington, New Mexico Defendant pro se.
Cole Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.
Red-Chase Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.
Sharer Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.
Bradford Dalley Aztec, New Mexico Defendant pro se.
Glasser Potts & Associates Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorney for Defendants Scott Sandefer, Kyle Davis, A.
Sanchez, and M. Chapman.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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
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.
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.
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.
to Dismiss at 4. Garcia has not filed a response opposing the
Motion to Dismiss.
REGARDING PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS
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 ...