Strickland v. City of Las Cruces et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JONATHAN STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:23-cv-00116-KG-KRS
CITY OF LAS CRUCES, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jonathan Strickland’s motion for a northern
jury pool, a special juror questionnaire, and a standing decorum order.1 See Doc. 270. For the
reasons below, the requests are denied.
I. Background
Mr. Strickland alleges that four officers of the Las Cruces Police Department (“LCPD”)
fired their weapons at him on March 11, 2021. Doc. 270 at 3–4. Mr. Strickland claims that, as a
“Black man…accused of…domestic violence,” proceeding to trial in Las Cruces would expose
him to “racism and implicit racial bias.” Id. In particular, he asserts a “danger of stealth jurors
in a southern jury pool” arising from “animosity” within “the law enforcement community
toward the justice system.” Id. at 10. Mr. Strickland cites pro-law enforcement social media
activity and fundraising efforts by members of the Las Cruces community during two prior
criminal trials involving LCPD officers. Id. at 5. Based on these concerns, he requests that the
trial be conducted in Albuquerque and that the Court employ a special juror questionnaire
1 Mr. Strickland has also moved for special jury selection proceedings. Doc. 270 at 1. Because
Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea will preside over jury selection, see Doc. 276, the Court
declines to rule on that request.
Case 2:23-cv-00116-KG-KRS Document 280 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 4

2
eliciting prospective jurors’ views regarding law enforcement and race. Doc. 270 at 10. He also
requests a “Standing Decorum Order” to prevent “online and direct harassment” of parties during
trial. Doc. 270 at 8.
II. Analysis
The Court denies Mr. Strickland’s requests to (A) move the trial to Albuquerque, (B) use
a special juror questionnaire during voir dire, and (C) enter a special decorum order.
A. Intra-district move
Mr. Strickland’s request to move the trial from Las Cruces to Albuquerque is denied. A
trial “may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any
other division in the same district.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14. “Courts look to the factors developed
under Section 1404(a) concerning venue transfer when determining a motion for intra-district
transfer.” Pauly v. New Mexico Dep’t of Pub. Safety, WL 12210482, at *1 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales,
J.). Those factors include: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of witnesses;
(3) the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof; (4) the possibility of obtaining a fair
trial; and (5) all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious, and
economical. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991).
Application of these factors in this case weigh against an intra-district transfer. The
alleged use of excessive force occurred in Las Cruces, and therefore the parties, witnesses, and
sources of proof are located there. Doc. 1 at 1–2; Doc. 273 at 16–7. The case has been litigated
in Las Cruces for two years, including preparation for an August 2025 trial. Doc. 273 at 4.
Transferring the trial now would undermine judicial economy.
Mr. Strickland’s contention that he cannot obtain a fair trial in Las Cruces due to
pervasive pro-police sentiment is unconvincing. Mr. Strickland points to community reactions—
Case 2:23-cv-00116-KG-KRS Document 280 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 4

3
including social media posts and fundraising efforts—relating to two other cases involving police
officers as evidence of “racism and implicit racial bias” among prospective jurors in Las Cruces.
See Doc. 270 at 3, 9. However, in both cases, Las Cruces juries returned guilty verdicts against
police officers following highly publicized trials. Doc. 270 at 2–3. Those outcomes indicate that
the local jury pool can evaluate claims against law enforcement fairly and independently. Mr.
Strickland has therefore not shown that an impartial jury cannot be seated in Las Cruces.
B. Special juror questionnaire
Mr. Strickland’s request for a special juror questionnaire is denied. A scheduling order
may be “modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
The Court set clear deadlines requiring proposed voir dire questions to be filed no later than
August 4, 2025, fifteen days before the original trial date. Doc. 175 at 1. Mr. Strickland neither
submitted proposed voir dire questions by that deadline nor sought leave of Court to do so
afterward. When the Court later continued the trial, it expressly ordered that “all previous
deadlines,” including the voir dire deadline, “remain in effect.” Doc. 261 at 1. Mr. Strickland
has not sought leave to modify the scheduling order or shown good cause for doing so. At the
final pretrial conference, the Court will address with counsel the appropriate scope and duration
of voir dire, including whether any limited written questions are warranted to facilitate jury
selection. Because Mr. Strickland filed his motion months after the August 2025 voir dire
deadline and without good cause, it is denied.
C. Special decorum order
Finally, the Court denies Mr. Strickland’s request for a standing decorum order. Mr.
Strickland has not presented evidence of online or direct harassment related to this case that
Case 2:23-cv-00116-KG-KRS Document 280 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 4

4
would warrant such relief at this time. Accordingly, the request is not ripe. The Court
nonetheless takes this opportunity to reiterate all local rules and practices.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Strickland’s requests to move the trial, use a special juror questionnaire, and enter a
decorum order, see Doc. 241, are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity,
please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the
NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing)
accompanying this document. Electronically
filed documents can be found on the Court’s
PACER public access system.
Case 2:23-cv-00116-KG-KRS Document 280 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 4