Fierro v. State of New Mexico

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MICHAEL SAMUEL FIERRO,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:24-cv-1001-SMD-KRS
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Samuel Fierro’s Prisoner’s Civil
Rights Complaint, (Doc. 5). Plaintiff is incarcerated and is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff has also filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 8), and numerous letters regarding
his claims (Docs. 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13). Plaintiff’s central allegations appear to be that he was
sentenced incorrectly and served more time than he should have. See (Docs. 5 and 8). He names
as Defendants the state judge who sentenced him, a state district attorney, and the New Mexico
Department of Corrections. See id. In his letters, Plaintiff also alleges ineffective assistance of
counsel, insufficient evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct in his underlying state trial, and seeks
to add multiple defendants, such as police officers and the Carlsbad Police Department. See, e.g.,
(Docs. 11, 12, 13).
“It is not the role of either the court or the defendant to sort through a lengthy ... complaint
and voluminous [supplemental pleadings] ... to construct plaintiff’s causes of action.” McNamara
v. Brauchler, 570 Fed. App’x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Glenn v. First Nat. Bank in Grand
Junction, 868 F.2d 368, 371 (10th Cir. 1989) (“The law recognizes a significant difference between
Case 2:24-cv-01001-SMD-KRS Document 22 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
notice pleading and ‘shotgun’ pleading.”); Pola v. Utah, 458 Fed. Appx. 760, 762 (10th Cir. 2012)
(rejecting submissions that include “everything but the kitchen sink”). Accepting Plaintiff’s
piecemeal pleadings would force the Court to “carefully comb through” the docket “to ascertain
which [filings] contain pertinent allegations to which a response is warranted.” McNamara, 570
Fed. App’x at 743. This would be particularly difficult here, as Plaintiff’s legal theories and
factual allegations are intermingled with his arguments seeking relief. The piecemeal pleadings
also impede the screening function under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the Court cannot discern
which claims Plaintiff seeks to pursue against which Defendants, or whether specific claims
against specific Defendants have merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring courts to sua sponte
screen prisoner complaints and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted).
Consistent with these authorities, the Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s current
pleadings and within 30 days of this ruling, Plaintiff must file a single amended complaint on the
proper form § 1983 complaint. The amendment must contain all claims and list all Defendants
that Plaintiff seeks to include in this case, and it must not exceed 27 pages in length. It must also
contain a short and plain statement demonstrating the grounds for relief, as required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a). The amendment must “make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom,
to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claim against him or her.” Robbins
v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff must
allege that each government official, through the official’s own individual actions, has personally
violated the Constitution. See Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1046 (10th Cir. 1998).
Moreover, “a defendant’s role must be more than one of abstract authority over individuals who
Case 2:24-cv-01001-SMD-KRS Document 22 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
actually committed a constitutional violation.” Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th
Cir. 2008); see also Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009) (to plead
supervisor’s liability, plaintiff must show he or she personally directed alleged offensive conduct
or knew the plaintiff’s rights were being violated but did not prevent it).
To the extent Plaintiff would seek to sue judges, prosecutors, or defense attorneys, such
claims are subject to dismissal. Prosecutors are immune from civil suits for damages under
§ 1983 in the performance of their prosecutorial functions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
430 (1976); see also Hinton v. Dennis, 362 F. App’x 904, 907 (10th Cir. 2010) (“State prosecutors
are entitled to absolute immunity against suits brought pursuant to § 1983 for activities intimately
associated with the judicial process.”). “[I]t is well established that neither private attorneys nor
public defenders act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when performing traditional
functions as counsel to a criminal defendant.” Dunn v. Harper County, 520 Fed. App’x. 723,
725-26, 2013 WL 1363797 at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013). Judges are similarly immune from suit
based on actions taken in their judicial capacity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991);
Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 Fed. App’x 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding judges absolutely immune
for actions taken in their judicial capacity and “not in the absence of all jurisdiction”).
If Plaintiff fails to timely file a single, amended complaint that complies with these
instructions - or if he continues to file piecemeal submissions that violate Rule 8(a) - the Court
may dismiss this case with or without prejudice. Plaintiff is finally advised that any amendment
will supersede the Complaint and must include all federal and state claims he wishes to pursue in
this case.
Case 2:24-cv-01001-SMD-KRS Document 22 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30
days that complies with this Order.
________________________________
SARAH M. DAVENPORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-01001-SMD-KRS Document 22 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 4