Heard v. Jablonski
| Decision Date | 18 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 18-0297 JB\LF,CIV 18-0297 JB\LF |
| Parties | PATRICK HEARD; DAVID TRUJILLO; CARLOS GARCIA; EDWARD SALAS; and MATTHEW HURST, Plaintiff, v. DAVID JABLONSKI, and GERMAN FRANCO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the Plaintiffs' Joinder Petition Claims Profound Isolation and Inadequate Mental Health, filed in state court February 6, 2018, filed in federal court March 30, 2018 (Doc. 1-2)("Complaint"). The Court will dismiss all claims in this case on grounds of mootness, immunity, failure to state a claim, and for failure to obey Court orders and rules or to prosecute.
This proceeding originally commenced in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico, on February 6, 2018. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. The Defendants removed the case to federal court on March 30, 2018. See Defendants' Notice of Removal, filed March 30, 2018 (Doc. 1). The named Plaintiffs include Patrick Heard, David Trujillo, Carlos Garcia, Edward Salas, and Matthew Hurst. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. The record suggests that Patrick Heard, as the lead Plaintiff, drafted and filed the Complaint. See Complaint at 7, 8 (signed by only Patrick Heard); Defendants' Motion to Dismiss David Trujillo and Edward Salas as Party Plaintiffs at 7, filed May 10, 2018 (Doc. 37)("Trujillo and Salas MTD")(depicting, in an attachment, that on the Complaint's verification page, handwritten notations from named Plaintiffs other than Heard disavow their signatures as their own). Evidence in the record also indicates that some of the other Plaintiffs may not have been aware of the Complaint's filing and the Plaintiffs' -- other than Heard's -- purported signatures on the verification page under penalty of perjury may not be genuine. See Complaint at 6; Trujillo and Salas MTD at 4, 7.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims arising out of alleged constitutional violations at the Penitentiary of New Mexico ("PNM"), in Santa Fe, New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. The Plaintiffs assert claims arising out of the PNM's Predatory Behavior Management Program ("PBMP"). See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. The Plaintiffs allege that the PBMP involves prolonged isolation and inadequate mental health care in violation of their constitutional rights. See Complaint ¶¶ 1-16, at 1-4. The Plaintiffs' prayer for relief includes injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. See Complaint ¶ 17, at 4-5. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, including:
Complaint ¶ 17(A)-(C), at 4-5. The Plaintiffs also seek $50,000.00 in punitive damages for each Plaintiff, court costs and attorney fees, and Complaint ¶ 17(F)-(G), at 5.
The Complaint names David Jablonski and German Franco as Defendants. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. Jablonski is the Secretary of Corrections for the State of New Mexico, and Franco is the Director of Adult Prisons for the New Mexico Corrections Department, a state agency. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1. The Plaintiffs sue both Jablonski and Franco in their individual and their official capacities. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1. Other than stating that Jablonski and Franco are "responsible for Operations and Programs at the New Mexico Corrections Department," the Complaint does not specify any act or omission either by Jablonski or by Franco. Complaint ¶ 4, at 1. Nor does the Complaint name any other defendant or identify any conduct by any individualofficial. The Complaint does not make even generic factual allegations of actions by generic "defendants" or by unknown defendants.
The Defendants have filed multiple motions to dismiss the claims, including: (i) the Trujillo and Salas MTD; (ii) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot the Claims of Plaintiff David Trujillo, filed August 24, 2018 (Doc. 56)("Trujillo Moot Claims MTD"); and (iii) the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Plaintiffs Patrick Heard, Carlos Garcia, Edward Salas, and Matthew Hurst, filed December 3, 2018 (Doc. 89)("12(b)(1) Motion"). Garcia, Salas, and Hurst have filed timely and untimely responses, and motions in opposition to dismissal of the claims. See Plaintiff Pleading for Non-Dismissal, filed January 4, 2019 (Doc. 97); Plaintiffs 2nd Motion for non-Dismissal, filed January 14, 2019 (Doc. 101); Motion to Sustain Claims of Plaintiff's Refuting - [sic] Defendants Motion to Dismiss, filed January 16, 2019 (Doc. 103); Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Plaintiff Edward Salas (Docs. 89, 103), filed January 25, 2019 (Doc. 107).
Beginning in January, 2019, mail sent to Heard's address of record has been returned as undelivered. See Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 96 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 89 MOTION to Dismiss , filed January 11, 2019 (Doc. 99); Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 101 MOTION for Hearing, filed January 22, 2019 (Doc. 104); Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 97 Notice (Other), filed January 28, 2019 (Doc. 110); Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 103 MOTION to Sustain Claims, filed January 28, 2019 (Doc. 112); Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 106 Notice (Other), filed February 4, 2019 (Doc. 115); MailReturned as Undeliverable re 105 Order to Show Cause, filed February 4, 2019 (Doc. 117); Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 109 Notice (Other), filed February 19, 2019 (Doc. 120); and Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 118 MOTION to Sever, filed February 26, 2019 (Doc. 122). New Mexico Corrections Department Records indicate that the New Mexico Corrections Department released Heard from custody on October 17, 2018. See 12(b)(1) Motion at 8 (). Since that date, Heard has not provided the Honorable Laura Fashing, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico or this Court with a current address, has not responded to Magistrate Judge Fashing's orders, and has not submitted any further filings in this proceeding.
Trujillo has submitted a statement that he was unaware that this lawsuit had been filed, that he did not sign the original Complaint, and that he is not interested in pursuing any claims. See Trujillo and Salas MTD at 7; Affidavit of Hector Cardenas, ¶ 6, at 4 (dated April 2, 2018), filed May 10, 2018 (Doc. 37)("Cardenas Aff."); Trujillo Moot Claims MTD ¶ 4, at 2. Trujillo has also completed the PBMP program and has been transferred to the general prison population at another facility. See Trujillo Moot Claims MTD ¶¶ 5-8, at 2. Trujillo has not responded to any of the motions to dismiss his purported claims and has not made any further filings in this case.
Garcia is also no longer in the PBMP program at the PNM North Facility. See 12(b)(1) Motion at 4. He is currently housed in another general population facility. See 12(b)(1) Motion at 10. Garcia has filed several motions, including a motion asking the Court to sever his claimson the grounds that: (i) Trujillo is not interested in pursuing the case; (ii) Heard has absconded; and (iii) Garcia's medical and psychological injuries are different from the other Plaintiffs and "should be" confidential. Motion to Sever ¶¶ 4-7, at 1, filed February 7, 2019 (Doc. 118)("Severance Motion").
Like Heard, Trujillo, and Garcia, Salas is no longer in the PBMP Program and is no longer housed at the PNM North facility. See 12(b)(1) Motion at 13, 15. Last, Hurst is no longer housed at the PNM North facility. See 12(b)(1) Motion at 16-19. The record reflects that Hurst is no longer in the PBMP Program. See 12(b)(1) Motion at 16-19. The record reflects that none of the Plaintiffs remain incarcerated at the PNM North facility, and none are still in the PBMP. See 12(b)(1) Motion at 19.
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 rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under rule 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. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)("Twombly"); 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. Okla. Dep't of Human Servs., 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. Aclaim should be dismissed where it is legally or factually insufficient to state...
To continue reading
Request your trial