United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the
Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint filed by Plaintiff,
Anthony Casillas (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted, but will grant Plaintiff Casillas leave to file an
Factual and Procedural Background
Anthony Casillas is a prisoner serving two life sentences for
First Degree Murder at the Central New Mexico Correctional
Facility. (Doc. 1 at 1; State v. Casillas, No.
D-905-CR-2008-00661). Plaintiff Casillas is proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff brings
prisoner civil rights claims in this Court under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. (Doc. 1 at 1-3).
Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, Casillas alleges that prison
officials violated state law and prison procedures,
“assaulted” him, and did not provide him with
needed medical care. (Doc. 1 at 3-5). Plaintiff Casillas
names, as Defendants, Sgt. Jared Westerfield, Sgt. Justin
Delong, C/O David Montoya, C/O Antonio Perez, C/O Juan
Sandoval, C/O Frederick Pickering, Sgt. Danny Evans, Lt.
Antonio Chavaria, and Lt. Misty Garley. (Doc. 1 at 1-2).
“Officers mentioned herein conducted themselves in an
unappropriate (sic) manner, (I) Inmate Anthony Casillas
#71798 was assaulted by all above, their behavior led to
serious bodily harm, I was injured and required medical
attention. Physically assaulted with closed first, kicked and
choked . . . Rights were violated, laws were broke and policy
procedure was not followed by these officers.”
(Doc. 1 at 2). In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff Casillas
“Immediate transffer (sic) to another facility,
disciplinary action to all staff involved, dismiss
restitution for staff uniforms damaged during assault,
compensation for physical injuries and mental anguish caused
by these officers.”
(Doc. 1 at 6). Plaintiff's Complaint does not specify a
date or dates on which any of the events occurred, nor does
it identify what officials, if any, were involved in the
claimed failure to provide medical attention.
The Law Regarding Dismissal for Failure to State a
Casillas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.
The Court has the discretion to dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint sua sponte for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted under either
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) the Court must accept all
well-pled factual allegations, but not conclusory,
unsupported allegations, and may not consider matters outside
the pleading. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188,
1190 (10th Cir. 1989). The court may dismiss a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if
“it is ‘patently obvious' that the plaintiff
could not prevail on the facts alleged.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting
McKinney v. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Services,
925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. A claim should be dismissed where it is legally or
factually insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) the Court may dismiss the complaint at
any time if the court determines the action fails to state a
claim for relief or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The authority granted by §
1915 permits the court the unusual power to pierce the veil
of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those
claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
See also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1109. The
authority to “pierce the veil of the complaint's
factual allegations” means that a court is not bound,
as it usually is when making a determination based solely on
the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the
plaintiff's allegations. Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The Court is not required to
accept the truth of the plaintiff's allegations but,
instead, may go beyond the pleadings and consider any other
materials filed by the parties, as well as court proceedings
subject to judicial notice. Denton, 504 U.S. at
reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court liberally construes
the factual allegations. See Northington v. Jackson,
973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1992). However, a pro se
plaintiff's pleadings are judged by the same legal
standards that apply to all litigants and a pro se plaintiff
must abide by the applicable rules of court. Ogden v. San
Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.
1994). The Court is not obligated to craft legal theories for
the plaintiff or to supply factual allegations to support the
plaintiff's claims. Nor may the Court assume the role of
advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d at 1110.
Analysis of Plaintiff ...