Walters v. New Mexico

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
• Writing for the Court: LESLIE R. HOFFMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
• Decision Date: 17 November 2021
• Docket Number: 6:21-cv-1510-WWB-LRH
• Citation: Walters v. New Mexico, 6:21-cv-1510-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla. Nov 17, 2021)
• Parties: JONATHAN RANDALL WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO Defendant.

1

JONATHAN RANDALL WALTERS, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO Defendant.

No. 6:21-cv-1510-WWB-LRH

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

November 17, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LESLIE R. HOFFMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 7)

FILED: October 6, 2021

THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED AND THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BUT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

I. BACKGROUND.

On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff Jonathan Randall Walters, proceeding pro se, filed a “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights” against Defendant State of New

2

Mexico. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff purports to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id., at 3). More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that:

Numerous members of New Mexico State Government including the Attorney General and its officers, the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department, NM Dept of Workforce Solutions, and the New Mexico Economic and Development Department have violated plaintiff[']s rights under the U.S. Constitution Amendments 1, 4, 5, and 14 while these State officials were on-duty and being paid by the taxpayers, and acting under the full color of both State law which is governed by the U.S Constitution

(Id., at 4).

Under “Statement of Claim, ” Plaintiff lists 20 purported violations of his constitutional rights, which took place from January 2021 to present, and include that various members of New Mexico government: harassed Plaintiff and his business partners; engaged in “overt and public defamatory tactics” to destroy Plaintiff's person, businesses, and “green technology invention;” engaged in witness tampering, harassment, and coercion to obtain a fraudulent conviction; illegally confiscated “intellectually derived materials, ” personal materials, and business related materials; illegally used “fraudulently obtained search and seizure warrants;” confiscated Plaintiff's personal and real property and then sold it to the highest bidder without due process; illegally entered Plaintiff's domicile without a search warrant; manufactured regulations “out of thin air, ” which were applied retroactively to seek Plaintiff's incarceration; refused to accept Plaintiff's offer of

3

“full and comprehensive and complete cooperation” and refused to accept Plaintiff's exculpatory evidence; and theft of $15, 000 in personal and emergency “locally kept cash.” (Id., at 4, 7-8). Plaintiff also alleges, from January 2019 to present, “violation by the NM Economic development Department based upon Plaintiff[']s racial makeup, ” and “Plaintiff[']s political beliefs and political utterings.” (Id., at 8). Finally, Plaintiff alleges “[p]ersecution based upon the violations stated thus far but does not include any other violations discovered during discovery/trial phases.” (Id.).

For relief, Plaintiff seeks the following: (1) protective services until this situation is resolved; (2) criminal incarceration for all parties determined to be in violation of Federal law; and (3) $125 million in real and punitive damages for damage to his person, his psychological well-being, and to his business and technology. (Id., at 5).

With the complaint, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees (Doc. 2), which the undersigned denied without prejudice on September 23, 2021 for insufficient information. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has now filed a renewed application, using the “long form” application, which the undersigned has construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been referred to the undersigned, and the matter is ripe for review.

4

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

The Court must conduct a two-step inquiry when a plaintiff files a complaint and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. First, the Court must evaluate the plaintiff's financial status and determine whether he or she is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, once the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is a pauper, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) and dismiss the complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the complaint seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)- (iii).^[1] A complaint is frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations must show plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). “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. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

5

A pro se complaint should be construed leniently, but a court does not have “license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. Moreover, a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).

III. ANALYSIS.

Upon review of Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7), it appears that Plaintiff qualifies as a pauper pursuant to § 1915(a)(1). However, Plaintiff's complaint suffers from a multitude of deficiencies, any one of which would be sufficient to recommend denial of in forma pauperis status and dismissal of the complaint. The undersigned focuses on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, which is dispositive.

The lone Defendant named in this case is the State of New Mexico. (Doc. 1). However, “the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies.” Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781 (1978). There are two exceptions to this prohibition: where the state has waived its immunity or where Congress has abrogated that immunity. Virginia Off. for Prot. & Advoc. v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 253-54 (2011). “A State's

6

consent to suit must be ‘unequivocally expressed' in the text of [a] relevant statute.” Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 284 (2011) (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984)). “Waiver may not be implied.” Id. Likewise, “Congress' intent to abrogate the States' immunity from suit must be obvious from ‘a clear legislative statement.'” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996) (quoting Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 786 (1991)).^[2]

Neither waiver nor abrogation apply here. New Mexico has not waived its immunity with respect to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Jackson v. New Mexico Pub. Def.'s Off., 361 Fed.Appx. 958, 963 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The State of New Mexico has not waived its immunity in civil rights suits [under § 1983].”); Tafoya v. New Mexico, 517 F.Supp.3d 1250, 1273 (D.N.M. 2021) (noting that New Mexico has not waived its ...