United States District Court, D. New Mexico
PRESTON J. BLAKE, Plaintiff,
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICES AND ALL ATTORNEYS’ FOR THE PLAINTIFF THAT REPRESENTED HIMSEL, WARDEN AT PRESENT FOR L.C.C.F. SANTESTEVAN AT PRESENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; ETC. JOHN DOE/OR JANE DOE and SUSANA MARTINEZ, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. BRACK SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on the Complaint for Violation of Civil
Rights filed by Plaintiff Preston J. Blake. (Doc. 1.) The
Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim
on which relief can be granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
is a prisoner incarcerated at the Lea County Correctional
Facility. (Id. at 2.) He was arrested in 2008 and
charged in the New Mexico state courts. State v.
Blake, No. D-911-CR-2008-00078. The Court takes judicial
notice of the proceedings in his state court criminal action.
See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192
n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that the Court may take judicial
notice of publicly filed records in this court and other
courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the
disposition of the case at hand). On May 18, 2009, Plaintiff
was convicted by a 12-person jury on charges of aggravated
burglary (commits battery), conspiracy, two counts of
receiving and disposing of stolen property, tampering with
evidence, and attempt to commit a felony. He was sentenced as
a habitual offender on June 4, 2009. With the application of
eight-year habitual offender enhancements based on prior
felony convictions, Plaintiff was sentenced to 41 years minus
two days in prison. See State v. Blake, No.
appealed his state criminal conviction, contending that (1)
the district court erred in allowing him to represent
himself, (2) his motion for a continuance was improperly
denied, (3) his speedy trial rights were violated, (4) his
counsel was ineffective, and (5) his convictions were not
supported by substantial evidence. See Blake v.
Janecka, No. CIV 13-00454 LH/KBM, Respondents’
Answer (Doc. 12), Ex. BB (D.N.M. Aug. 22, 2013). The New
Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction,
(id.), and the New Mexico Supreme Court denied
certiorari (id. Ex. DD). After completing the direct
appeal process, Plaintiff filed a pro se state
habeas petition, which the state district court denied; the
New Mexico Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari.
(Id. Exs. GG, HH.) Not finding relief in the state
courts, he filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this
Court, raising the same issues he had raised in the state
court proceedings. His Petition was denied on the merits.
See id., Pet. (Doc. 1) & Order Adopting the
Chief Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 30).
filed his Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights on December
7, 2018. (Doc. 1.) He seeks to have the case proceed as a
class action. (Id. at 1, 3, 15.) The Complaint
identifies Eric Fierro, Augustin Granado, Jr., Jessy L.
Garcia, and David Otero as additional plaintiffs “at
the discretion of the Judge and Court, ” but the
Complaint is signed solely by Plaintiff. (Id. at 1,
10, 14.) Plaintiff may not represent any other individual or
maintain this case as a class action, and the additional
individuals are not proper parties to this proceeding.
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d
1320, 1320 (10th Cir. 2000).
names, as Defendants, the State of New Mexico, the New Mexico
Public Defender’s Offices, Warden at present for
L.C.C.F. (Santestevan), Jane and John Does, Governor Susana
Martinez, and attorney Jennifer Burrill. (Doc. 1 at 1, 11.)
He again contends that his criminal defense counsel were
ineffective, resulting in the imposition of an unreasonable
sentence. (Id. at 4–7). Plaintiff prays for
1. Ordering Defendants to pay punitive and compensatory
2. Systematic change to the Public Defenders Dept. in as to
the Attorney Contract System.
3. To be released from prison, and that my case be vacated or
4. Awarding Plaintiffs the reasonable costs and expenses of
their action including attorney’s fees.
(Id. at 9).
PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1915
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 12.)
Because the Court grants the application, the filing fee for
this civil rights complaint is $350.00. Based on the
information about Plaintiff’s financial status
(id.), the Court will waive an initial partial
payment pursuant to § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is still
required to pay the full amount of the filing fee pursuant to
THE LAW REGARDING ...