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. Jimenez

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

November 14, 2019

ALEJANDRO GARCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
CONROE JEROME “MIKE” JIMENEZ, DORRIUS DORA LEE JIMENEZ, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915 AND FED. R. APP. P. 24

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Alejandro Garcia's letter motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees filed October 31, 2019 (Doc. 31) (“Motion”). For the reasons set out, below, the Court will DENY Plaintiff Garcia's Motion.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Plaintiff Alejandro Garcia filed a Complaint raising civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 28, 2018. (Doc. 1). At the time of filing of his Complaint, Plaintiff Garcia was a prisoner incarcerated at the East Texas Treatment Multi-Use Facility, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, in Henderson, Texas. (Doc. 17 at 2). Garcia named Conroe Jerome “Mike” Jimenez and Dorrius (Dora) Lee Jimenez as Defendants. (Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff Garcia alleged that Defendants are the owners of “Phoenix Covair” in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. (Doc. 1 at 3). He claimed:

“invasion of privacy, illegal wiretapp, harrassing. . . . That is happening to me right now, the illegal and very deadly wire tapp is runned with electricity, which can kill a person.”

(Doc. 1 at 3-4) (errors in the original). In his request for relief, Plaintiff stated:

“I need the trial cause number, have an attachment of all their personal property, and also their real estate records, home and business, put a hold/freeze on their accounts, to be highly compensated.”

(Doc. 1 at 4). Plaintiff sent the Court numerous letters raising concerns as to how his Complaint came to be filed in this Court and that the use of Court employee's initials on the Court docket constitutes some sort of secret code. (Doc. 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14). Plaintiff also filed a letter motion stating:

“I want to press full criminal charges on Phoenix Covair owners in Santa Teresa, New Mexico 87103. (505) 748-9800 for Illegal Deadly Wire Tapp, Invasion of Privacy, Harassment, Tortue Devise, Fret Pack and the most important Terroist Act on A American that is happening to me.”

(Doc. 5) (errors in the original). Garcia also claimed:

‘Also I Alejandro Garcia #1545719 am letting this court know that I am Alejandro Garcia #1545719 Also Donald J. Trump United States of America President of the United States. . .I need for you to please get me out on a full pardon from the program I am at MTC. I am serious, I ‘ve got all my magazines here with me. I got all kinds of proof. What it is nobody knows who I am. I need your help. Thank you Alejandro Garcia #1545719 Aka: Donald J. Trump.”

(Doc. 17).

         On June 28, 2019, the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order and its Judgment dismissing Plaintiff Garcia's Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 18, 19). The Court ruled that, in the absence of any allegation that any Defendant is a government official acting under color of state law, Defendants are not proper parties and the Complaint fails to establish § 1983 jurisdiction. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 315, 317-18 (1981); Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442, 1447 (10th Cir. 1995). (Doc. 18). The Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Judgment were sent to Plaintiff at his address of record. (Doc. 18, 19). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Judgment were not delivered to Plaintiff. The June 28, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Judgment constituted a final disposition of this case.

         Following the dismissal of this case, Plaintiff sent the Court six letters demanding that the Court provide him answers to various questions. (Doc. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25). The letters sent by Plaintiff were in disregard of the Court's Case Management Order directing Plaintiff not to submit letters to the Court. (Doc. 16 at 3). Among other questions, Plaintiff's letters inquire as to the status of the case and when he is “going to be highly compensated.” See, e.g., Doc. 25). The Court entered an Order on September 18, 2019, addressing Plaintiff's post-judgment letters and restricting Plaintiff from any further filings in the case other than a notice of appeal. (Doc. 26).

         Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal on October 7, 2019. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff's ...


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.