Baldomor v. Wilkins et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
_____________________________
CHRISTOPHER BALDOMOR,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	No. 24-cv-499 WJ/KK
FNU WILKINS, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Christopher Baldomor’s Civil Complaint,
filed May 20, 2024. (Doc. 1) (“Complaint”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
and was incarcerated when he filed the Complaint. See (Doc. 5). Having reviewed the Complaint,
the record of the case, and relevant law, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and grant Plaintiff
leave to amend.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2024, he was housed in an overcrowded cell at the
Reception and Diagnostic Center (“RDC”) of the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility
(“CNMCF”). (Doc. 1) at 1. He further alleges that he and others were transferred to the Grants
County Correctional Facility (“GCCF”) on February 24, 2024, which was a Level 3 facility, and
that a stabbing occurred there “just days after the plaintiff arrived.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff contends his
life was in danger due to the overcrowded conditions and dangerous inmates. Id. Finally, Plaintiff
states he “is in fear of retaliation by GCCF staff, which has occurred on (3/8/24) by being placed
Case 2:24-cv-00499-WJ-KK Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 6

2
in seg [sic] without just cause or proper documentation stating any reason for a period of 14 days
time.” Id.
Plaintiff brings claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act and the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. 	Id. at 1-3. 	He names as Defendants: Warden Wilkins, GCCF; Unit
Manager Jacob O; and Alisha Tafoya, Director of the Corrections Department. Id. at 1. Plaintiff
seeks damages in the amount of $1,700 per day; $100,000 for every state law violation; and
$500,000 for every constitutional law violation. Id. at 3.
II. 	Standards Governing Initial Review of Prisoner Complaints
Under the Prison Reform Litigation Act (PLRA), federal courts must engage in a
preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a government entity or officer.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify any cognizable claim and dismiss any claim
which is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The
Court may also dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) if “it is patently obvious that
the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing [plaintiff] an opportunity to amend
[the] complaint would be futile.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotations
omitted). 	To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must present factual
allegations, assumed to be true, that “raise a right to relief about the speculative level.” 	Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must contain “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A court must accept all the well-pleaded
allegations of the complaint as true and must construe the allegations in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Id. at 555. However, “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could
Case 2:24-cv-00499-WJ-KK Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6

3
not raise a [plausible] claim of entitlement to relief,” the cause of action should be dismissed. Id.
at 558.
Because Plaintiff is pro se, his “pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. While pro
se pleadings are judged by the same legal standards that apply to represented litigants, the Court
can overlook the “failure to cite proper legal authority, … confusion of various legal theories, …
poor syntax and sentence construction, or … unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” 	Id.
Nevertheless, it is not the “proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for
the pro se litigant.” Id. If the initial complaint fails to state a claim, courts should generally grant
leave to amend unless amendment would be futile. Id.
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff’s constitutional claims must be analyzed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the “remedial
vehicle for raising claims based on the violation of [federal] constitutional rights.” 	Brown v.
Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.9 (10th Cir. 2016). “A cause of action under section 1983 requires
the deprivation of a civil right by a ‘person’ acting under color of state law.” McLaughlin v. Bd. of
Trustees, 215 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2000). The 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). There must also be a connection between
the official conduct and the constitutional violation. See Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162
(10th Cir. 2008); Trask, 446 F.3d at 1046. In addition, “a successful § 1983 complaint must make
clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice
Case 2:24-cv-00499-WJ-KK Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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).
Applying these standards, the Complaint fails to state a cognizable constitutional claim
against the named Defendants. Plaintiff’s allegations do not tie any individual Defendant to the
alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiff does not state what actions the Warden, Unit Manager, or Director
of the Corrections Department took, or if they had any role in the alleged violations. The pleading
standard requires a plaintiff to specify the wrongful conduct of the individual state actors. 	See
Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1250 (referring collectively to the wrongdoing of defendants “with no
distinction as to what acts are attributable to whom, [makes it] impossible for any of the[]
individuals to ascertain what particular unconstitutional acts they are alleged to have committed”).
To the extent Plaintiff attempts to plead supervisory liability, he must show the supervisor
personally directed alleged offensive conduct or knew Plaintiff’s rights were being violated but
did not prevent it. 	Fogarty, 523 F.3d at 1162 (“[A] defendant’s role must be more than one of
abstract authority over individuals who actually committed a constitutional violation.”); Gallagher
v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009). 	Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants are not sufficient to show personal participation in the challenged acts. The Complaint
therefore fails to state a federal constitutional claim against any named Defendant.
Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice
for failure to state a cognizable claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Tenth Circuit counsels that pro se
plaintiffs should ordinarily be given an opportunity to “remedy defects potentially attributable to
their ignorance of federal law.” 	Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, Plaintiff may file a single amended complaint on the proper form § 1983 complaint
Case 2:24-cv-00499-WJ-KK Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 6

5
within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. The amendment must not exceed 27 pages in length.
Plaintiff is reminded that 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 claims against him
or her.” Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1249-50 (emphasis in original). “Collective allegations” regarding
the alleged wrongdoing will not meet this standard. 	Id. 	Plaintiff is further reminded that if he
wishes to name an entity or a prison supervisor, such defendants cannot be liable under § 1983 for
the actions of their employees. See Cannon v. City and County of Denver, 998 F.2d 867, 877 (10th
Cir. 1993); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). 	The
allegations must show the entity or prison supervisor is responsible for a policy or custom that
caused the constitutional violation. 	See Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 993-94 (10th Cir. 1996);
Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1164-65 (10th Cir. 2011). If Plaintiff does not know and cannot
learn the names of the alleged wrongdoers, he may use unnamed (i.e., Jane or John Doe)
defendants, but he must provide an adequate description “sufficient to identify the person involved
so process eventually can be served.” Roper v. Grayson, 81 F.3d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1996).
In addition, to state a viable Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must plead facts that satisfy
standards governing the objective and subjective elements of the claim. See Al-Turki v. Robinson,
762 F.3d 1188, 1192 (10th Cir. 2014). 	This requires that “the deprivation alleged must be,
objectively, sufficiently serious,” meaning that the prison official’s act or omission must result in
the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities[.]” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834 (1994). 	This also requires Plaintiff to establish that the defendant had a sufficiently
culpable state of mind, meaning the defendant knew he faced “a substantial risk of serious harm
and disregard[ed] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” 	Id. at 847. 	If
Case 2:24-cv-00499-WJ-KK Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Plaintiff seeks to pursue a claim for retaliation, he must sufficiently plead three elements: (1) the
plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) the defendant responded by causing
an injury that “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that
activity;” and (3) the defendant’s adverse action was substantially motivated as a response to the
plaintiff’s constitutionally protected activity. Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196, 1203 (10th
Cir. 2007); Rhodes v. Shannon, 2024 WL 79964, at *3 (10th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024).
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. 	If Plaintiff fails to timely
amend his complaint as set forth above, 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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order,
Plaintiff must file a single, amended complaint that complies with the above instructions; and
failure to timely comply with this Memorandum Opinion and Order may result in dismissal of this
action without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_____________________________________
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00499-WJ-KK Document 11 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 6