United States District Court, D. New Mexico
LAWRENCE M. JIRON, Plaintiff,
JARED POLIS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
C. BRACK SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court sua sponte under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on the Civil Complaint filed
by Plaintiff Lawrence Jiron. (Doc. 1.) The Court lacks
jurisdiction over all Defendants and claims and will dismiss
the case without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(2).
is a prisoner incarcerated by the Colorado Department of
Corrections at the Limon Correctional Facility in Limon,
Colorado. (Id. at 6.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff
names Jared Polis, Governor of the State of Colorado.
(Id. at 1.) He also improperly uses the phrase
“et al., ” an abbreviation for et alii,
meaning “and others” in the caption, but he does
not specify who the “others” might be. See et
alii, Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.
body of his Complaint Jiron alleges “I needed to change
the Court-for this Court of Colorado will not prosecute the
Defendants.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) He then references a civil
cause number, 19cv1730 G.P.G., and mentions United States
District Judge Lewis F. Babcock of the District of Colorado.
(Id.) Jiron asserts he is seeking copyright and
trademark relief under the federal trade and commerce
statutes and contends “[i]n the rules-15-USC,
1-38, states IT I, can record my complaint in any U.S.
District Court to address my concerns. Colo is very prejudice
and Bias.” (Id. at 2.) Jiron then lists
several Colorado state criminal cases (Alamosa County
01-cr-85, Delta County 07-cr-220, Fremont County 11-cr-18 and
Logan County 14-cr-257 and 17-cr-87), claims false
imprisonment and kidnapping, and demands that this Court
order Colorado Secretary of State Williams to return his
bonds and “release me.” (Id. at 3-4.) He
signs his Complaint as “Sovereign American
©” and “Solitary Witch ©.”
(Id. at 4.) The Complaint does not contain
allegations of any act, omission, statement, transaction, or
occurrence in or connected to the State of New Mexico.
is a prisoner, proceeding pro se and seeking redress against
a Colorado governmental officer. Therefore, his Complaint is
subject to preliminary screening and dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A contains no express
authorization for a dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals has previously held, however, that a
district court may, in certain circumstances, properly
dismiss an action based on an affirmative defense where the
defense clearly appears on the fact of the complaint. See
Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006);
Fratus v. Deland, 49 F.3d 673, 674-75 (10th Cir.
1995). The lack of jurisdiction is clearly apparent on the
face of the Complaint.
Process Clause permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant “so long as there exist
minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum
State.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980). The “minimum
contacts” standard may be met, consistent with due
process, “if the defendant has purposefully directed
his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation
results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to
those activities.” Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). A district
court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant
must also be reasonable in light of the circumstances
surrounding the case. See Id. at 477-78.
as a jurisdictional basis, Plaintiff asserts that under Title
15 of the United States Code, he “can record my
complaint in any U.S. Dist. Ct.” (Doc. 1 at 2.)
Although his Complaint does not specify what provision of
Title 15 Jiron may be seeking to invoke, the likeliest
provision appears to be 15 U.S.C. § 15. Section 15
states that anyone who has been injured by a violation of
Title 15 “may sue therefore in any district court of
the United States in the district in which the defendant
resides or is found.” 15 U.S.C. § 15(a). The
Complaint does not appear to allege any cause of action under
Title 15, but even if it did, no one named in the Complaint,
whether as a named defendant or simply referenced in the
text, resides or is found in the District of New Mexico.
Therefore, no Title 15 jurisdiction exists in New Mexico over
even if Plaintiff is attempting to seek relief under some
other statute, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, the Complaint does not allege that anyone
resides in New Mexico, that any conduct by anyone occurred in
New Mexico, or that the allegations are even connected to New
Mexico. The Complaint does not establish any, much less
minimum, contacts with the State of New Mexico. Burger
King, 471 U.S. at 472. It is clear from the face of the
Complaint that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over any
Defendant or claim, and the Court will dismiss Plaintiff s
Complaint under Rule 12(b)(2).
IS ORDERED that the Civil Complaint filed by
Lawrence M. Jiron (Doc. 1) and all claims and causes of
action are DISMISSED without prejudice ...