Maldonado v. Maldonado
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 19-0192 JB\KK,CIV 19-0192 JB\KK |
| Citation | 494 F.Supp.3d 1150 |
| Parties | Steven MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. Manuel MALDONADO, County of Grants, and the Sixth Judicial District Court, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Steven Maldonado, Chaparral, New Mexico, Plaintiff pro se.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, filed March 7, 2019 (Doc. 1)("Complaint"). Plaintiff Steven Maldonado proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. See Order Granting Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) at 1, filed June 13, 2019 (Doc. 6)("IFP Order"). He asserts civil claims stemming from his state convictions for criminal sexual penetration of a child under thirteen years of age. Having carefully reviewed the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court concludes that the claims are barred as a matter of law. The Court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
S. Maldonado is a state inmate at the Otero County Prison Facility in Chaparral, New Mexico. See Complaint at 1. The Complaint raises claims against: (i) the Grant County, New Mexico, Sheriff Department Transport Sergeant Manuel Maldonado ("M. Maldonado"); and (ii) the County of Grant. See Complaint at 1-2. S. Maldonado's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed January 27, 2020, appears to add a third Defendant, the Sixth Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico. See Motion to Compel Discovery at 1 (Doc. 14)("Discovery Motion"). The Complaint raises civil rights claims based on S. Maldonado's 2013 arrest and prosecution for an unspecified crime. The state criminal docket, which is subject to judicial notice, reflects that S. Maldonado pled guilty to two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a child under thirteen and one count of criminal sexual contact of a child under thirteen. See State v. Maldonado, Repeated Offender Plea and Disposition Agreement at 1, Case No. D-608-CR-2013-00181, filed March 21, 2017, Sixth Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico. See also United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (); Stack v. McCotter, 79 F. App'x 383 (10th Cir. 2003)1 (); Van Duzer v. Simms, No. CIV 18-0405 JB/LF, 2018 WL 2138652, at *1 n.1 (Browning, J.)(courts may take judicial notice of New Mexico state criminal dockets).
According to the Complaint, M. Maldonado altered evidence in the state rape case. See Complaint at 3. S. Maldonado alleges that M. Maldonado transported the victim, presumably to or from the police station, during the investigation. See Complaint at 3. Someone allegedly coached the victim on her statement to police. See Complaint at 3. The Complaint does not specify who did the coaching, but the allegations appear to imply that M. Maldonado may have done the coaching during the car ride. See Complaint at 3. S. Maldonado further alleges that M. Maldonado altered, "re-transcribed," and "re-worded" the transcripts of the victim's April 23, 2018 police interview. Complaint at 3. Specifically, M. Maldonado purportedly removed certain statements to Connie Campos, a specialist who worked for the Children's Advocacy Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico. See Complaint at 3. Finally, the Complaint addresses the DNA evidence in the case, contending that DNA swabs from his hand and mouth did not match the semen found on the victim or on her sheets. See Complaint at 3-4. As to Grant County, the Complaint alleges only that the County Clerk "denie[d] [S. Maldonado's] right to a one time free copy of court transcripts for March 20th." Complaint at 2.
The Complaint does not specify what relief, if any, S. Maldonado seeks. S. Maldonado submits the form 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pleading, but it appears that he omits the page addressing the "prayer for relief." Complaint at 4, 6 (). Construed liberally, S. Maldonado appears to seek relief from his state rape convictions. S. Maldonado also may seek damages under § 1983 from M. Maldonado, the County of Grant, and the Sixth Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, based on the allegedly improper criminal investigation. After filing the Complaint, S. Maldonado filed three handwritten letters along with the Discovery Motion. See Letter from S. Maldonado to U.S. District Court at 1, filed August 2, 2019 (Doc. 7); Letter from S. Maldonado to U.S. District Court at 1, filed August 15, 2019 (Doc. 8); Letter from S. Maldonado to U.S. District Court at 1, filed August 21, 2019 (Doc. 9)(together, the "Supplemental Filings"). See also Discovery Motion at 1. The Discovery Motion and the Supplemental Filings reiterate S. Maldonado's argument that M. Maldonado altered the victim's interview transcripts, and they request copies of evidence and pleadings from the state criminal proceeding. See Discovery Motion at 1; Supplemental Filings at 1. S. Maldonado alleges that these documents will "prove [his] claims." Discovery Motion at 1.
The Court referred the matter to the Honorable Kirtan Khalsa, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, for recommended findings and disposition, and to enter non-dispositive orders. See Order of Reference Relating to Prisoner Cases at 1, filed March 8, 2019 (Doc. 3). S. Maldonado obtained leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted an initial partial filing fee, and the matter is ready for sua sponte initial review. See IFP Order at 1.
Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code requires courts to conduct a sua sponte review of all civil complaints where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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. § 1915(e)(2). The court may also 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (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, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "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, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations and 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). "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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "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 United States Court of Appeals for 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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial