Wilson v. Board of County Commissioners of San Juan County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHARLES PATRICK WILSON,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	No. 24-cv-265 JCH/KRS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Charles Patrick Wilson’s failure to file an
amended complaint as directed. Plaintiff was incarcerated when he initiated this proceeding and
is proceeding pro se. His original Complaint begins with an “Entry of Explanation” in which he
states that his attorney withdrew from a civil case he had filed in state court. (Doc. 1) at 1 (citing
state case No. D-1116-CV-2023-1231, filed in the Eleventh Judicial District Court in San Juan
County, New Mexico). Plaintiff asks the Court to accept this state court complaint “on the basis
for this Prisoners Civil Rights Complaint herein, filed with this court.” Id. The Complaint itself
lists the same eight defendants named in the state court complaint, but does not raise any claims
or grounds for relief. See id. at 2-7.
Attached to the Complaint is the state court complaint filed in Case No. D-1116-CV-2023-
1231. 	Id. at 8-18. 	The state court complaint names eight defendants: Farmington Police
Department officers Hansel Felix, Zachary Goar, and Billy Cancino; the Board of County
Commissioners of San Juan County; Thomas Havel, warden of San Juan County Detention Center
Case 1:24-cv-00265-JCH-KRS Document 14 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 4

2
(“SJCDC”); Thomas Paul, SJCDC operations lieutenant; Michael York, SJCDC booking sergeant;
and A. Klitzke, SJCDC correctional officer. Id. at 8-9. The state court complaint alleges that on
November 1, 2021, Defendants Felix and Goar injured Plaintiff while arresting him. Id. at 14. It
further alleges that Plaintiff was then attacked by another detainee following his arrest while he
was in the booking area of the SJCDC. Id. at 10-13. The state court complaint brings two claims
against Defendants pursuant to the New Mexico Tort Claims Act: (1) Battery; and (2) Negligent
Operation of a Building. Id. at 13-17. The state court docket in Case No. D-1116-CV-2023-1231
reflects that Plaintiff’s attorney withdrew from the case on February 13, 2024, and on March 11,
2024 Plaintiff filed a pro se Motion to Dismiss the state case without prejudice to allow him time
to seek new counsel.1 The state district court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss on February
27, 2025, and dismissed the state case without prejudice. 	See Order Dismissing Case Without
Prejudice, filed in Case No. D-1116-CV-2023-1231.
By a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered May 14, 2025, the Court determined the
original Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. 9) (Screening Ruling); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring sua sponte screening
of prisoner complaints against governmental entities). 	The Screening Ruling explains it is not
clear whether Plaintiff intended to file the Complaint in this Court, or if he intended to re-open his
state case. The Court informed Plaintiff that if he intended to re-open his state case, he may file a
complaint in the state court, and the Court provided the state court address. (Doc. 9) at 4. The
1 To better interpret the citations in the Petition, the Court took judicial notice of Plaintiff’s state
court docket in Case No. D-1116-CV-2023-1231. See United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765, 768
n.2 (10th Cir. 2010) (recognizing a court may take judicial notice of docket information from
another court).
Case 1:24-cv-00265-JCH-KRS Document 14 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Screening Ruling further explains that it is not clear this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
claims because Plaintiff does not assert any federal claims, and his state court action only raises
state-law claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. See id.; see also In re Syngenta AG MIR
162 Corn Litig., 61 F.4th 1126, 1170 (10th Cir. 2023) (explaining federal courts may sua sponte
analyze jurisdiction); Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, N.M., 696 F.3d 1018, 1023 (10th Cir. 2012)
(“[F]ederal question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint,” and courts must “look
to the way the complaint is drawn” to determine whether it asserts a “right to recover under the
Constitution and laws of the United States.”) (quotations omitted); Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036,
1046 (10th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a plaintiff bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must
allege that each government official, through the official’s own individual actions, has personally
violated the Constitution).
Based on these pleading defects, the Court dismissed the claims in the original Complaint
without prejudice. (Doc. 9) at 4-5. Consistent with Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 126
(10th Cir. 1990), Plaintiff was sua sponte invited to amend his claims within thirty (30) days of
entry of the Screening Ruling. 	The Screening Ruling set forth the general pleading standards
governing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the pleading standards to bring an Eighth Amendment
claim or a claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. (Doc. 9) at 5-6. Plaintiff was
warned that any amendment will supersede the original Complaint and must include all federal
and state claims he wishes to pursue in this case. He was further warned that if he fails to timely
amend his complaint, the Court may dismiss all federal § 1983 claims with or without prejudice;
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims; and dismiss all state law
claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Case 1:24-cv-00265-JCH-KRS Document 14 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 4

4
The deadline to amend was June 13, 2025. After granting Plaintiff’s two motions to extend,
the Court set a final deadline of November 4, 2025 for Plaintiff to amend his Complaint. 	See
(Docs. 11 and 13) (granting Plaintiff’s Motions to Extend, Docs. 10 and 12). 	Plaintiff did not
amend, show cause for such failure, or otherwise respond to the Screening Ruling. Accordingly,
the Court will dismiss all federal § 1983 claims in the original Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice
for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 12(b)(6). See Novotny
v. OSL Retail Servs. Corp., 2023 WL 3914017, at *1 (10th Cir. June 9, 2023) (affirming dismissal
with prejudice where the district court rejected a “claim [under Rule 12(b)(6)] but gave [plaintiff]
leave to amend, cautioning that failure to allege a plausible claim would result in … [such a]
dismissal”). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in
the original Complaint (Doc. 1) and will therefore dismiss those claims without prejudice. 	See
Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 549 (10th Cir. 1997) (federal courts should generally
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that each federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in Plaintiff’s
original Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Rule 12(b)(6).
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	Court 	declines 	to 	exercise 	supplemental
jurisdiction over any state law claims in the original Complaint (Doc. 1); such state law claims are
therefore DISMISSED without prejudice; and the Court will enter a separate judgment closing
the civil case.
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00265-JCH-KRS Document 14 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 4