Avalos v. Gloria
| Docket Number | CIV 22-0119 JB/KBM |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2023 |
| Parties | RAUL AVALOS, Plaintiff, v. R. GLORIA, Major; FNU TRUJILLO, Lieutenant; FNU GENTRY, Warden, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Raul Avalos Hobbs, New Mexico Plaintiff pro se
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, filed February 18, 2022 (Doc 1)(“Complaint”). Plaintiff Raul Avalos is a State prisoner who is currently incarcerated at the Northeast New Mexico Correctional Facility in Clayton, New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 2. He appears pro se and is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order Granting In Forma Pauperis Application, filed May 17, 2022 (Doc. 9). Avalos alleges that prison officials at the Northeast New Mexico Correctional Facility violated his federal statutory and constitutional rights by threatening to tell the general-population inmates that he was a child abuser. See Complaint ¶ II.D. at 4. He also seeks to bring claims arising under State tort law. See Complaint ¶ IV, at 5. Having carefully reviewed the pleadings under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court dismisses the federal claims and grants leave to file an amended complaint. Additionally, the Court concludes that Avalos' State tort claims are not viable, and, therefore the Court will dismiss them.
The following facts are from the Complaint. For the limited purpose of its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court assumes that the Complaint's allegations are true. Defendant FNU Gentry is the Warden at the Northeast New Mexico Correctional Facility. See Complaint ¶ I.B, at 2. Defendant R. Gloria is a Major, and Defendant Trujillo is a Lieutenant at the Northeast New Mexico Correctional Facility. See Complaint ¶ I.B, at 2. Avalos was an inmate at the Northeast New Mexico Correctional Facility when he filed the Complaint. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 2.
Avalos alleges that, in January, 2022, Gloria and Trujillo threatened to inform the general inmate population that Avalos is a child abuser who deserves to be beaten and/or killed. See Complaint ¶ II.D. at 4. He alleges that Gloria and Trujillo put his life in jeopardy while they “blacklisted” and “blackmailed” him, using his criminal charges as leverage. Complaint ¶ IV, at 4. Avalos appears to allege that Gloria and Trujillo engaged in this conduct, because Avalos asked others to pause their conversation and remain silent while Avalos prayed. See Complaint at 13. Additionally, Avalos alleges that Gloria and Trujillo's verbal threats “energized [him] with ‘schiz[o]phrenic' feelings,” but that the mental health staff ignored Avalos. Complaint ¶ V, at 5. Avalos alleges that Gloria and Trujillo ordered mental health staff not to consult him. See Complaint ¶ V, at 5. Avalos also appears to allege that he was subjected to corporal punishment in retaliation for filing grievances about Gloria and Trujillo's threats. See Complaint ¶ VII.E, at 7. Avalos seeks damages for violations of his federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Complaint ¶ II, at 3. He also seeks relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”), and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. See Complaint ¶ II, at 3. Finally, Avalos seeks relief under the tort theories of negligence, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Complaint ¶ II, at 3.
Section 1915A of Title 28 of the United States Code requires a court to conduct a sua sponte review of all civil complaints where a plaintiff is incarcerated and seeks relief from a government official. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must dismiss any in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court also may dismiss a complaint sua sponte under rule 12(b)(6) if “it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged and allowing [plaintiff] an opportunity to amend [the] complaint would be futile.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). In other words, the same standard of review applies under rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(e).
Rule 12(b)(6) tests the “sufficiency of the allegations within the four corners of the complaint after taking those allegations as true.” Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994)(citing Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 997 (10th Cir. 1991)). A complaint's sufficiency is a question of law, and when reviewing the complaint, a court must accept as true all of a complaint's well-pled factual allegations, view those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322-23 (2007) ; Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009) .
A complaint need not set forth detailed factual allegations, but “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (footnote omitted).
To survive rule 12(b)(6) review, a plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient “facts that, if assumed to be true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Mink v. Knox, 613 F.3d 995, 1000 (10th Cir. 2010)(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Thus, the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complainant must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.” Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007)(emphasis omitted). The Tenth Circuit has stated:
“[P]lausibility” in this context must refer to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, then the plaintiffs “have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” The allegations must be enough that, if assumed to be true, the plaintiff plausibly (not just speculatively) has a claim for relief.
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008)(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
In conducting the initial review, a pro se prisoner's pleadings “are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1110. If the court can “reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, . . . confusion of various legal theories, . . . poor syntax and sentence construction, or . . . unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1110. At the same time, however, pro se parties must file a legible pleading that complies with rule 8. That rule requires: “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
Section 1983 is a vehicle for vindicating substantive rights against State officials under the United States Constitution. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3 (1979); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994)( that § 1983 does not create substantive rights; rather it is the means through which a plaintiff may seek redress for deprivations of rights established in the Constitution); Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006). Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State . . . subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law ....
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Only a “person” may be held liable under § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must assert acts by State government officials acting under color of State law that...
To continue reading
Request your trial