Macdonald v. Secretary Department of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JASON MACDONALD,
Petitioner,
v. No. 25-cv-0564-SMD-SCY
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jason Macdonald’s Second Amended
Prisoner Rights Complaint. Doc. 5 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff is a state prisoner in Bowling Green,
Florida and is proceeding pro se. He appears to raise 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against various
Florida officials based on, inter alia, the alleged denial of due process in his Florida state criminal
proceedings. The exact scope of the claims is unclear because Plaintiff filed various motions and
notices supplementing the allegations. Docs. 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 19-22, 25-26. It is also unclear
whether any claims or Defendants are connected to the District of New Mexico.
After submitting the supplemental pleadings, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Action.
Doc. 23 (“Motion”). The Motion asks the Court “to strike this action by dismissal without
prejudice.” Doc. 5 at 1. The Motion also contains a single ground for relief, which reiterates:
“[MacDonald] is entitled to relief for dismissal of action without prejudice.” Id. at 2. Elsewhere
in the Motion, however, it appears that Plaintiff may seek the dismissal of a different, unknown
action where he is the defendant. The Motion states Plaintiff is “entitled to dismissal due to [the]
failure to comply with a Rule or Court order: 41.1 a violation of the attorney-client privilege.” Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00564-SMD-SCY Document 27 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
In the request for relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to “enter a judgment on relief;” order his
“emergency release;” and “set a Court date for Rule 16 procedures.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff submitted
a Notice on the same day as the Motion, which attaches various prison grievances from the Florida
Department of Corrections. Doc. 22. Thereafter, he submitted three other notices purporting to
provide evidence about his prison conditions and confirming that he wishes to receive mail at his
current Florida facility. Docs. 24, 25, 26.
On this record, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff intends to continue prosecuting
this case or whether venue is proper in the District of New Mexico. If Plaintiff intends to prosecute
this civil proceeding (No. 25-cv-0564-SMD-SCY), he must file a single amended complaint within
thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. Any 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 v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008). The amendment
must also list each Defendant; provide their address or location; and describe where the alleged
wrongdoing occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (considering those factors with respect to venue).
The Court will not consider any piecemeal filings aside from the single amended complaint,
nor will it order a release from state custody in this civil rights action. See Hamilton v. Bird, 650
Fed. App’x 585, 588 (10th Cir. 2016) (noting an inmate “may not pursue civil rights and habeas
claims in the same action”). Consistent with this ruling, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s pending
motions raising supplemental factual allegations or seeking discovery/substantive relief. Docs. 6,
10-13, 15-16, 18. Plaintiff may reassert any relevant factual allegations in his single, amended
complaint. To the extent those motions ask the Court to update Plaintiff’s address, no further relief
is necessary. The Clerk’s Office has already updated Plaintiff’s address pursuant to each new
Case 1:25-cv-00564-SMD-SCY Document 27 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
notice. The Court will finally grant Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.
3), which reflects he cannot afford to pay the filing fee.
If Plaintiff seeks to dismiss this civil case without prejudice, he does not need to take any
further action. The failure to timely amend in accordance with the above instructions will result in
the dismissal of this action without prejudice to refiling. The Court may also dismiss this action if
Plaintiff continues to file piecemeal pleadings and notices rather than a single, amended complaint.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a single, amended complaint within 30 days of
entry of this Order, if he seeks to prosecute this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.
3) is GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s remaining motions raising supplemental allegations and/or
seeking relief in connection with the original Complaint (Docs. 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18) are
DENIED without prejudice, as set forth above.
_________________________________________
SARAH M. DAVENPORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00564-SMD-SCY Document 27 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3