Del Campo v. Dona Ana County Detention Center
2:20-cv-00636
| D.N.M. | Jul 22, 2020Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Ramon M. del Campo sued the Doña Ana County Detention Center (DACDC) and its executive director, Bryan Baker, alleging unspecified civil-rights violations tied to kiosk documents, surveillance footage, and records of the detention center’s medical contractor.
- Plaintiff also complained about unauthorized ‘‘young ladies’’ in restricted areas and asked the court to consult the record in a different case he filed against the City of Las Cruces Police Department.
- Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); he reported monthly income of $805 and expenses of $400.
- The Court granted the IFP application based on Plaintiff’s affidavit of poverty.
- The Court found the complaint deficient: it did not identify a specific constitutional right or adequately plead facts showing a § 1983 violation; DACDC was not a separately suable entity; and there were no factual allegations tying Baker to wrongdoing.
- Rather than dismissing with prejudice, the Court granted leave to amend the complaint by August 21, 2020, and declined to order service until a viable amended complaint and a motion providing defendants’ addresses were filed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff may proceed IFP | Del Campo cannot afford filing fees (reports $805 income; $400 expenses) | No opposition presented | Granted — IFP authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) |
| Whether Complaint states a § 1983 claim | Kiosk records, surveillance, and other documents show civil-rights violations | Not argued; court finds allegations too vague and not tied to a constitutional right | Complaint fails to state a claim; leave to amend granted |
| Whether DACDC is a proper defendant under § 1983 | Sued DACDC as a defendant | Government sub-units like DACDC are generally not separately suable | DACDC is not a suable entity; claim dismissed as pleaded |
| Whether Baker is adequately alleged to have violated rights | Named Baker as executive director | No factual allegations describing Baker’s actions or how rights were violated | Claims against Baker dismissed for failure to plead defendant-specific facts; leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Menefee v. Werholtz, [citation="368 F. App'x 879"] (10th Cir. 2010) (standards for considering IFP applications and potential dismissal)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (definition of indigence for IFP and necessity standard)
- Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2014) (requirement that § 1983 pleadings show a violation of constitutional or federal law)
- Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 (10th Cir. 1985) (governmental subunits are not separately suable entities)
- Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (pleading rule requiring defendant-specific factual allegations)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (district court not required to act as advocate for pro se litigants)
- Webb v. Caldwell, [citation="640 F. App'x 800"] (10th Cir. 2016) (limits on dismissal of pro se IFP complaints and when amendment is futile)
- Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (standard for permitting amendment of pro se complaints where dismissal for failure to state a claim may be inappropriate)