United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
who is proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendants
violated his 5th and 14th Amendment rights in August 2019
during proceedings in Mental Health Court because his Public
Defender was not present and no other "legal aid or
representation of any kind was given or offered."
Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Negligence (28 U.S.C.
§ 1332; Diversity of Citizenship), Doc. 3, filed August
21, 2019 ("Complaint"). Plaintiff objected to
"the sanction of 16 hours of community service."
Complaint at 4. Defendants are Mental Health Court Judges and
staff. See Complaint at 2. Plaintiff seeks the
following relief: "At this time as my fifth and
fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United
States of America were violated I Wilfred Alexander Page ask
that a Class Action Lawsuit be considered to rectify the
severe violations towards not only myself but Et Al at least
25 Mental Health Court Inductees such as myself."
Complaint at 4. The Court construes the Complaint as a civil
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of
Court will deny Plaintiff's request that "a Class
Action Lawsuit be considered to rectify the severe violations
towards not only myself but Et Al at least 25 Mental Health
Court Inductees such as myself," because Plaintiff, who
is not an attorney admitted to practice in this Court, may
not assert claims on behalf of others. See Fymbo v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir.
2000) ("A litigant may bring his own claims to federal
court without counsel, but not the claims of others.").
filed his Complaint using the form "Complaint for a
Civil Case Alleging Negligence (28 U.S.C. § 1332;
Diversity of Citizenship)." The form instructs Plaintiff
to "[s]tate briefly and precisely what damages
or other relief the plaintiff asks the court to order."
Complaint at 4 (emphasis added). Plaintiff did not
state precisely what damages or other relief he seeks.
Instead, he simply asked that the Court "rectify the
severe violations." Complaint at 4. On August 23, 2019,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplement to his
Complaint by September 6, 2019 stating precisely what damages
or other relief he wants the court to order and notified
Plaintiff that failure to timely file a supplement may result
in dismissal of this case. See Order to Supplement
Complaint (Doc. 4). Plaintiff did not file a supplement by
the September 6, 2019, deadline.
party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court,
Plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts that support
jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980,
985 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Since federal courts are courts
of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists
absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal
jurisdiction”); Evitt v. Durland, 243 F.3d 388
*2 (10th Cir. 2000) (“even if the parties do not raise
the question themselves, it is our duty to address the
apparent lack of jurisdiction sua sponte”) (quoting
Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842,
843 (10th Cir.1988).
Court does not have diversity jurisdiction in this case.
See Evitt v. Durland, 243 F.3d 388 *2 (10th Cir.
2000) (“even if the parties do not raise the question
themselves, it is our duty to address the apparent lack of
jurisdiction sua sponte”) (quoting Tuck v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 843 (10th
Cir.1988). The Complaint states that Plaintiff and Defendants
are citizens of New Mexico. See Complaint at 1-3.
Consequently, there is no properly alleged diversity
there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction
because Defendants are state court judges and staff involved
in the judicial process, and Plaintiff has not alleged an
ongoing violation of federal law and is not seeking
prospective relief. See Sawyer v. Gorman, 317
Fed.Appx. 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)) (“[S]tate 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”); 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”); Sawyer v. Gorman,
317 Fed.Appx. 725, 728 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[I]mmunity
which derives from judicial immunity may extend to persons
other than a judge where performance of judicial acts or
activity as an official aid of the judge is involved.
Absolute judicial immunity has thus been extended to
non-judicial officers, like clerks of court, where their
duties had an integral relationship with the judicial
process”); Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt,
669 F.3d 1159, 1167 (10th Cir. 2012) (for the Ex parte
Young exception to state sovereign immunity to apply, a
plaintiff must show that he is: “(1) suing state
officials rather than the state itself, (2) alleging an
ongoing violation of federal law, and (3) seeking prospective
relief”). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to have the
Mental Health Court ruling overturned, this Court lacks
jurisdiction. See Bolden v. city of Topeka, Kan.,
441 F.3d 1129, (10th Cir. 2006) ("The Rooker
Feldman doctrine prohibits federal suits that amount to
appeals of state-court judgments").
Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for lack
of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.,
434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2006) (“[Dismissals for
lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the
court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the
action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on
the merits of the underlying claims.”).
IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED