Castillo v. Jacks et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DARRELL CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	No. CIV 24-1153 JB/SCY
JACK BENNET JACKS, and
ELAINE A. ABEYTA-MONTOYA,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court following Castillo Darrell Castillo’s failure to
amend his pleadings as the Court directs. 	Castillo is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated when
he files his claims. 	The Court enters a Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed September 15,
2025, (Doc. 33)(“Screening MOO”), granting in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed
December 4, 2024 (Doc. 7), and directing Castillo to file a single, amended complaint that
complies with rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	See Screening MOO at 8-9.
Because Castillo has not complied with the Screening MOO, and having reviewed applicable law
and the record, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Castillo originally files his Complaint on October 7, 2024, in New Mexico’s Second
Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. 	See Prisoner’s Civil Rights
Complaint (filed in State court October 7, 2024), filed in federal court November 12, 2024 (Doc. 2-
1)(“Complaint”). 	Castillo brings claims against State district attorneys Defendants Jack Bennet
Jacks and Elaine A. Abeyta-Montoya, contending that they violated various Constitutional
provisions and State statutes in his state criminal cases, D-202-CR-2019-3220 and D-202-CR-
2019-2401. 	See Complaint ¶¶ 1-6, at 8-9. 	He alleges, among other things, Constitutional
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 9

- 2 -
violations regarding due process, prosecutorial misconduct, speedy trial, and double jeopardy.
See Complaint ¶¶ 7-10, at 9.
The State criminal docket reflects that, in Case No. D-202-2019-2401, Castillo was charged
with two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a child, one count of contributing to the
delinquency of a minor, and battery. 	See State of New Mexico v. Darrell Castillo, Case No. D-
202-2019-2401, Grand Jury Indictment (County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District Court, State
of New Mexico filed July 30, 2019). 	On October 3, 2019, the State entered a “Nolle Prosequi” in
Case No. D-202-CR-2019-2401, stating: “[T]he State has re-indicted this case.” 	The same day,
Castillo was charged in case D-202-2019-3220 with the same four counts. 	See State of New
Mexico v. Darrell Castillo, Case No. D-202-2019-03220, Grand Jury Indictment (County of
Bernalillo, Second Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, Grand Jury Indictment filed
October 3, 2019). 	On May 8, 2025, Castillo was found guilty at trial of two counts of criminal
sexual penetration of a child, and on July 24, 2025, he was sentenced to a total of fifteen years
imprisonment, with five years suspended. 	See State of New Mexico v. Darrell Castillo, Case No.
D-202-CR-2019-3220, Judgment and Partially Suspended Sentence (County of Bernalillo, Second
Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, Judgment and Partially Suspended Sentence filed
July 24, 2025). 	On July 28, 2025, Castillo filed an appeal of his conviction with the Court of
Appeals of New Mexico. 	See State of New Mexico v. Darrell Castillo, Case No. D-202-CR-
2019-3220, Notice of Appeal (County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District Court, State of New
Mexico, Notice of Appeal filed July 28, 2025). 	The State docket entries are subject to judicial
notice. 	See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007)(holding that
courts have “discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records . . . and certain other courts
concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”); Stack v. McCotter,
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 9

- 3 -
No. 02-4157, 2003 WL 22422416 (10th Cir. Oct. 24, 2003)(unpublished)(concluding that a State
district court’s docket sheet is an official court record subject to judicial notice under rule 201 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence); 1 Van Duzer v. Simms, No. CIV 18-0405 JB/LF, 2018 WL
2138652, at *1, n.1 (D.N.M. May 9, 2018)(Browning, J.)(determining that courts may take judicial
notice of New Mexico State criminal dockets).
On November 11, 2024, Jacks and Abeyta-Montoya and Jacks removes the case to the
federal Court based on federal-question jurisdiction. 	See Notice of Removal, filed November 11,
2024 (Doc. 2). 	On May 30, 2025, Castillo files the Amended Prisoner Complaint for Violation
of Civil Rights, filed May 30, 2025 (Doc. 25)(“Amended Complaint”), in which he restates many
of the claims in his Complaint and adds three Defendants -- a defense attorney and two staff
members of the State public defender’s office. 	See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1-4, at 2-5, 13-14.
For relief, Castillo asks for dismissal of his State case and a monetary award. 	See Complaint ¶ 2,
at 12; Amended Complaint ¶ 4, at 5. 	Castillo files sixteen supplemental letters that contain
additional factual allegations, claims, and possible defendants. 	See Letter by Darrell Castillo,
1 Stack v. McCotter is an unpublished opinion, but the Court can rely on an unpublished
opinion to the extent its reasoned analysis is persuasive in the case before it. 	See 10th Cir. R.
32.1(A) (“Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but may be cited for their persuasive
value.”). 	The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit states:
In this circuit, unpublished orders are not binding precedent, . . . and we have generally
determined that citation to unpublished opinions is not favored. 	However, if an
unpublished opinion or order and judgment has persuasive value with respect to a material
issue in a case and would assist the court in its disposition, we allow a citation to that
decision.
United States v. Austin, 426 F.3d 1266, 1274 (10th Cir. 2005). 	The Court concludes that Stack
v. McCotter, Naves v. Bigelow, 565 F. App’x 678 (10th Cir. 2014), and DeAtley v. Williams,
782 F. App’x 736 (10th Cir. 2019) have persuasive value with respect to a material issue, and
will assist the Court in its disposition of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 9

- 4 -
filed November 22, 2024 (Doc. 4); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed November 22, 2024 (Doc. 5);
Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed December 6, 2024 (Doc. 8); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed
December 6, 2025 (Doc. 9); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed December 9, 2024 (Doc. 10); Letter
by Darrell Castillo, filed December 9, 2025 (Doc. 11); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed December
13, 2024 (Doc. 12); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed December 20 2024 (Doc. 14); Letter by Darrell
Castillo, filed December 30, 2024 (Doc. 17); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed January 6, 2025 (Doc.
18); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed February 18, 2025 (Doc. 19); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed
March 10, 2025 (Doc. 21); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed May 16, 2025 (Doc. 24); Letter by
Darrell Castillo, filed June 27, 2025 (Doc. 29); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed July 11, 2025 (Doc.
30); Letter by Darrell Castillo, filed July 17, 2025 (Doc. 31); (“Supplemental Filings”). 	These
Supplement Filings discuss the claims in Castillo’s Complaint and Amended Complaint, and assert
claims regarding conditions of confinement and access to legal resources. 	Jacks and Abeyta-
Montoya file a Motion to Dismiss on December 4, 2024 (Doc. 7), and a Motion to Stayon June 13,
2025 (Doc. 23).
On September 15, 2025, the Court enters the Screening MOO setting forth the pleading
standards for rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the requirements
for stating a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	See Screening MOO at 5-11. 	The Court also
sets forth the law regarding immunity of prosecutors and defense attorneys, the Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971), 2 abstention doctrine prohibiting interfering with State court proceedings, and
2 Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts generally refrain from
interfering with ongoing state judicial proceedings when the state forum provides an adequate
opportunity for relief. 	See Weitzel v. Div. of Occupational & Prof’l Licensing, 240 F.3d 871, 875
(10th Cir. 2001). 	Younger abstention applies where there is (i) an ongoing state proceeding, (ii)
important state interests, and (iii) an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims. 	See J.B. ex rel.
Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999)(citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v.
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 9

- 5 -
the Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),3 bar on collateral attacks on criminal judgments
through civil litigation. 	See Screening MOO at 11-14. 	The Court holds that Castillo’s piecemeal
pleadings do not comply with rule 8, grants in part the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as to all
defendants, and directs Castillo to file a single Amended Complaint that complies with rule 8(a).
See Screening MOO at 14-19. 	The Court directs Castillo to file a single Amended Complaint on
the proper § 1983 complaint form that contains all of his claims and lists all Defendants he seeks
to include in this case. 	The Court explains that Castillo’s claims seeking damages for an allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment are not viable under § 1983.
“[T]o recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment . . . , a §
1983 Castillo must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . . or called into question by a
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]”
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 486-87. 	Similarly, the Court explains that Castillo may not
challenge an ongoing State court proceeding where the State forum provides an adequate avenue
for relief. 	See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 37.
In response to the Screening MOO, Castillo files a one-page Letter from Darrell Castillo
to the United States District Court Clerk’s Office (dated October 2, 2025), filed October 3, 2025
(Doc. 34)(“Letter”). 	Castillo re-asserts that the State improperly files his State criminal case, and
he asks the Court to “keep the case open longer” to see how the Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 	Courts may raise the doctrine sua sponte.
See Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1976).
3 Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a plaintiff may not pursue a § 1983
action where success would necessarily imply the invalidity of an existing conviction or sentence.
See McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109, 118 (2019). 	This bar applies not only to claims for
damages, but also to requests for declaratory or injunctive relief where such relief would
necessarily undermine the validity of the conviction or sentence. 	See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544
U.S. 74, 80-81 (2005).
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 5 of 9

- 6 -
rules. 	See Letter at 1. 	The Court analyzes whether to dismiss this case under rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and to comply with orders.
ANALYSIS
Rule 41(b) authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action “[i]f the Castillo fails to
prosecute or to comply with the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order.” 	Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). 	See AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233,
1236 (10th Cir. 2009)(“‘A district court undoubtedly has discretion to sanction a party for failing
to prosecute or defend a case, or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural
rules.’”)(quoting Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir.2002)). 	As the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit explains, “the need to prosecute one’s claim (or face
dismissal) is a fundamental precept of modern litigation . . . .” 	Rogers v. Andrus Transp. Services,
502 F.3d 1147, 1152 (10th Cir. 2007). 	“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the
defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss
actions sua sponte for a Castillo’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure
or court[s’] orders.” 	Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003).
“Dismissals pursuant to Rule 41(b) may be made with or without prejudice.” 	Davis v.
Miller, 571 F.3d 1058, 1061 (10th Cir. 2009). 	If dismissal is made without prejudice, “a district
court may, without abusing its discretion, enter such an order without attention to any particular
procedures.” 	Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cty. Justice Center, 492
F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2016). 	Because “[d]ismissing a case with prejudice, however, is a
significantly harsher remedy -- the death penalty of pleading punishments -- [the Tenth Circuit
has] held that, for a district court to exercise soundly its discretion in imposing such a result, it
must first consider certain criteria.” 	Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cty.
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 6 of 9

- 7 -
Justice Center, 492 F.3d at 1162. 	Those criteria include: the degree of actual prejudice to the
defendant; the amount of interference with the judicial process; the culpability of the litigant;
whether the court warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action would be a likely
sanction for noncompliance; and the efficacy of lesser sanctions. 	See Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cty. Justice Center, 492 F.3d at 1162 (quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333
F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003)).
Here, Castillo has not filed an Amended Complaint on the § 1983 form, nor does he address
any of the pleading requirements that the Screening MOO discusses. 	Castillo’s files his Letter in
response to the Screening MOO, but the Letter does not address the pleading requirements or
remedy any of the defects in his original Complaint. 	While Castillo asks the Court to “keep the
case open longer,” he does not indicate an intent to file an Amended Complaint that complies with
the Screening MOO. 	See Letter at 1. 	In light of these failures, the Court denies the relief that
Castillo requests in his Letter, and dismisses this case pursuant to 41(b) for failure to prosecute,
and to comply with rules and orders. 	See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d at 1204. 	After considering
the factors in Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cty. Justice Center, the
dismissal is without prejudice. 	The Court reminds Castillo that, if he wants to challenge his State
conviction or sentence’s validity, he must submit a completed petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
and, if he wishes to challenge the execution of his sentence or his pretrial detention, he must submit
a completed petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235
(10th Cir. 2007)(“[A] state court defendant attacking his pretrial detention should bring a habeas
petition pursuant to . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”); Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d 830,833 (10th Cir.
2005)(“[A] challenge to the execution of a sentence should be brought [as a habeas petition] under
28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2241.”); 	Naves 	v. 	Bigelow, 	565 	F. 	App’x 	678, 	679 	n.1 	(10th 	Cir.
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 7 of 9

- 8 -
2014)(unpublished)(stating that “[a] proceeding under § 2254 is the proper vehicle for a challenge
to the validity of a conviction or sentence” in federal court). 	To the extent necessary, the Court
also denies a certificate of appealability (“COA”) under rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, effective Feb. 1, 1977, as amended to Dec.
1, 2019, because the failure to prosecute this case is not reasonably debatable. 	See Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(establishing that a district court may issue a COA only in
habeas cases where “reasonable jurists would find the . . . assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable 	or 	wrong”); 	DeAtley 	v. 	Williams, 	782 	F. 	App’x 	736, 	737 	(10th 	Cir.
2019)(unpublished)(declining to issue a COA after district court dismisses habeas petition and
denies a COA under rule 41).
IT IS ORDERED that (i) the Plaintiff’s Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint (filed in State
court on October 7, 2024), filed in federal court on November 12, 2024 (Doc. 2-1), and Amended
Complaint, filed May 30, 2025 (Doc. 25), is dismissed without prejudice; (ii) the relief requested
in the Plaintiff’s Letter from Darrell Castillo to the United States District Court Clerk’s Office
(dated October 2, 2025), filed October 3, 2025 (Doc. 34), is denied; (iii) the Court denies a
Certificate of Appealability; and (iv) the Court will enter a separate Final Judgment disposing of
this civil case.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 8 of 9

- 9 -
Parties and Counsel:
Darrell Castillo
Los Lunas, New Mexico
Plaintiff pro se
Thomas C. Bird
Chris R. Bird
Jennings Haug Keleher McLeod Waterfall LLP
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for the Defendants
Case 1:24-cv-01153-JB-SCY Document 38 Filed 12/18/25 Page 9 of 9