Ogden v. San Juan County, Nos. 93-2314

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore MOORE, ANDERSON, and KELLY; STEPHEN H. ANDERSON
Citation32 F.3d 452
PartiesKevin K. OGDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, Farmington Police Department, Aztec Detention Center, State of New Mexico, and Las Vegas Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Decision Date02 August 1994
Docket Number94-2027,Nos. 93-2314

Page 452

32 F.3d 452
Kevin K. OGDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAN JUAN COUNTY, Farmington Police Department, Aztec
Detention Center, State of New Mexico, and Las
Vegas Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 93-2314, 94-2027.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 2, 1994.

Page 453

SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS: *

Kevin Kean Ogden, pro se.

Kathleen M. V. Oakey of the Baker Law Firm, Albuquerque, NM, for appellees.

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Kevin K. Ogden, proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action on July 11, 1990, against San Juan County, the Farmington Police Department, the Aztec Detention Center, Johnny Bird, the Las Vegas Medical Center and the State of New Mexico. He alleged violations of his constitutional rights arising from his arrest by the Farmington police and his subsequent treatment for a variety of alleged physical and mental maladies while in custody of the Aztec Detention Center.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and, on August 26, 1992, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the State of New Mexico and the Las Vegas Medical Center on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. It also granted the motion to dismiss as to defendant Johnny Bird without prejudice, on the ground that Mr. Ogden failed to allege any facts regarding Mr. Bird. The court granted Mr. Ogden thirty days in which to amend his complaint, and granted the remaining defendants, San Juan County, Farmington Police Department and Aztec Detention Center, thirty days in which to file an answer.

Defendants, on September 24, 1992, timely filed an answer, raising numerous affirmative defenses. Mr. Ogden failed to amend his complaint.

On November 25, the district court sua sponte entered an order finding that Mr. Ogden had failed to file an amended complaint and failed to respond to defendants' affirmative defenses and directing Mr. Ogden

Page 454

to "file a response to the affirmative defenses within thirty (30) days or face dismissal of his complaint for want of prosecution." Order, R.Vol. I, Tab 20. When Mr. Ogden again failed to respond, defendants filed a motion on January 15, 1993, seeking to dismiss for failure to file a response. On January 21, the court entered an order dismissing Mr. Ogden's complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution. On that same day, January 21, 1993, Mr. Ogden filed a "Motion for Continuance and Motion for Counsel," which he amended on January 25.

On June 29, 1993, Mr. Ogden filed a notice of appeal to this court. By order dated October 13, 1993, this court dismissed his appeal and remanded the matter to the district court, noting that the appeal was filed late but:

[T]he plaintiff contends in his notice of appeal that he did not receive notice of the district court's order dismissing the case. Because, by proffering an excuse, the plaintiff appeared to recognize he had a timeliness problem, we liberally construe the notice of appeal as a motion to reopen for appeal pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6).

Order, R.Vol. I, Tab 30. The court ordered the district court to "determine whether the time period for filing a notice of appeal should be reopened for fourteen days pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6)." Id.

On remand, in a decision dated November 2, 1993, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1044 practice notes
  • Quintana v. Core Civic (C.C.A.), No. CIV 18-0233 JB/GJF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • November 30, 2020
    ...that apply to all litigants, however, and a pro se plaintiff must abide by the applicable rules of court. See 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 pla......
  • Chavez v. United States, CIV 21-0872-JB-SCY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • October 25, 2021
    ...any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). LAW REGARDING SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the court to dismiss a complaint for “......
  • Vigil v. Doe, No. CIV 19-0164 JB\JFR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • July 31, 2019
    ...any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure." Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994).LAW REGARDING IFP COMPLAINTS The Court has discretion to dismiss an IFP complaint sua sponte pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) "a......
  • Serna v. Webster, No. CIV 17-0020 JB/WPL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • September 30, 2017
    ...pro se pleadings liberally, a pro se plaintiff must follow the rules of federal and appellate procedure. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). A pro se complaint is subject to dismissal under rule 8(a) if it is "incomprehensible." Olguin v. Atherton, 215 F.3d 1337......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1059 cases
  • Quintana v. Core Civic (C.C.A.), No. CIV 18-0233 JB/GJF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • November 30, 2020
    ...that apply to all litigants, however, and a pro se plaintiff must abide by the applicable rules of court. See 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 pla......
  • Chavez v. United States, CIV 21-0872-JB-SCY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • October 25, 2021
    ...any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). LAW REGARDING SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the court to dismiss a complaint for “......
  • Vigil v. Doe, No. CIV 19-0164 JB\JFR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • July 31, 2019
    ...litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure." Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994).LAW REGARDING IFP COMPLAINTS The Court has discretion to dismiss an IFP complaint sua sponte pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) &......
  • Serna v. Webster, No. CIV 17-0020 JB/WPL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • September 30, 2017
    ...pro se pleadings liberally, a pro se plaintiff must follow the rules of federal and appellate procedure. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). A pro se complaint is subject to dismissal under rule 8(a) if it is "incomprehensible." Olguin v. Atherton, 215......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT