Alvarez v. Albuquerque Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 10 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 18-00645 JCH/SMV,CV 18-00645 JCH/SMV |
| Parties | JOSEPH J. ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, BERNALILLO COUNTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on the Amended Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Doc. 6) filed by Plaintiff, Joseph J. Alvarez. The Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.
On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff Joseph J. Alvarez filed a Complaint to Recover Damages for Injury in the State of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District Court. (Doc. 1-1). The case was docketed as Second Judicial District cause no. CV 2018-02200. (Doc. 1-1 at 1). The Complaint named the City of Albuquerque ex rel. Albuquerque Police Department and the State of New Mexico as Defendants. (Doc. 1-1 at 1). As his factual basis for the case, Alvarez alleges that on May 25, 2015, the Albuquerque Police Department improperly seized a 2002 Suzuki GSXR motorcycle based on Plaintiff Alvarez driving on a revoked or suspended license. (Doc. 1-1 at 2). The vehicle was subsequently forfeited based on a default judgment entered by Second Judicial District Judge Denise Barela Shepard. (Doc. 1-1at 2). Alvarez asserted five counts for relief: (1) violation of Fourth Amendment rights; (2) violation of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (3) violation of New Mexico's Forfeiture Act; (4) mental anguish; and (5) punitive damages. (Doc. 1-1 at 3). The case was removed to this Court by Defendant State of New Mexico based on the existence of a federal question on the face of Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff Alvarez filed an Amended Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights in this Court on July 18, 2018. (Doc. 6). His Amended Complaint asserts jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 6 at 1). Alvarez names, as Defendants, Albuquerque Police Department, State of New Mexico, and Bernalillo County Second Judicial District Court. (Doc. 6 at 2-3). His Amended Complaint alleges four claims for relief:
(Doc. 6 at 7). Plaintiff's prayer for relief seeks $1,000,000 in damages for constitutional violations, $3,000,000 in damages for violation of the New Mexico Forfeiture Act, and $500,000 damages for severe mental anguish. (Doc. 6 at 5). Attachments to the Amended Complaint indicate that Alvarez's claims arise from forfeiture of three vehicles: (1) the 2002 Suzuki GSXR motorcycle onMay 25, 2015; (2) a Volvo 2-door silver automobile, VIN JS1GR7HA12210154 on July 28, 2015; and (3) the Volvo 2-door silver automobile on July 31, 2017. (Doc. 6 at 8-9).
The Defendant State of New Mexico filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 17, 2020. (Doc, 10). The State's Motion for Summary Judgment seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims on the grounds of judicial immunity and because the State is not a "person" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff Alvarez is proceeding pro se. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review any civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental entity. The Court is to dismiss the action if (1) the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915A(b). The Court has the discretion to dismiss a pro se complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 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. Id.
In 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.
Alvarez's Amended Complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 6 at 3). In order to state a § 1983 claim for relief, a plaintiff must allege some personal involvement by an identified official in the alleged constitutional violation. Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008). To succeed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must assert acts by government officials acting under color of law that result in a deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). There must be a connection between official conduct and violation of a constitutional right. Conduct that is not connected to a constitutional violation is not actionable under Section 1983. See Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1046 (10th Cir. 2006).
A plaintiff must plead that each government official, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). In a Section 1983 action, it is particularly important that a plaintiff's complaint "make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claim against him or her." Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in the original). Further, a civil rights action against a public entity may not be basedsolely on a theory of respondeat superior liability for the actions of unnamed employees. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.at 676.
In this case, Plaintiff Alvarez does not name any individual governmental official as a defendant. His Complaint names only the Albuquerque Police Department, the State of New Mexico, and the Bernalillo County Second Judicial District Court as parties defendant. (Doc. 6 at 1). Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a civil rights claim against any government official. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.
Although he does not name her as a Defendant, Plaintiff Alvarez makes mention of State District Judge Denise Barela Shephard in the allegations of the Complaint. (Doc. 6 at 8). Even if Alvarez had named Judge Shepard as a Defendant, however, any claims against her are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Federal and state law claims against judicial officers acting as judges are clearly barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1473-76 (10th Cir. 1990); Hunnicutt v. Sewell, 147 N.M. 272, 277-78, 219 P.3d 529, 534-45 (Ct. App. 2009). It is well settled that the doctrine of judicial immunity is applicable in actions, such as the case at bar, with 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as well as state law claims. Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434-35 (10th Cir.1986); Collins on Behalf of Collins v. Tabet, 111 N.M. 391, 396, 806 P.2d 40, 45 (1991). Absolute immunity bars all suits for money damages for acts made in the exercise of judicial discretion. Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1033 (10th Cir.2006).
The United States Supreme Court has recognized absolute immunity for officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982). The purpose of absolute judicial immunity is:
Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d at 1434-35. To the extent the Amended Complaint could be construed to seek damages against Judge Shepard for acts that were unquestionably made in the exercise of judicial discretion, any claims against Judge Shepard are barred by...
To continue reading
Request your trial