Del Campo v. United States Department of Justice, No. 2:2020cv00641 - Document 35 (D.N.M. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez DISMISSING 1 Complaint; DENYING 16 MOTION for Order; DENYING 19 MOTION for Order; DENYING 20 MOTION for Order; DENYING 6 MOTION for Order; DENYING 23 MOTION for Ord er; DENYING 15 MOTION for Order; DENYING 31 MOTION for Order; DENYING 22 MOTION for Order; DENYING 14 MOTION for Order; DENYING 25 MOTION for Order; DENYING 21 MOTION for Order; DENYING 18 MOTION for Order; DENYING 7 M OTION for Order; DENYING 17 MOTION for Order; DENYING 13 MOTION for Order; DENYING 8 MOTION for Order; DENYING 10 MOTION for Order; DENYING 9 MOTION for Order; DENYING 28 MOTION for Order; DENYING 12 MOTION for Order; and DENYING 29 MOTION for Order. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (gr)

Download PDF

Del Campo v. United States Department of Justice Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO RAMON M. DEL CAMPO, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:20-cv-00641-MV-KRS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended complaint. Plaintiff names the United States Department of Justice and Waylon Barr as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges: “An unidentified agent has been caught on servallance cameras conducting illegal operations along with City of Las Cruces Detectives. See attached form. Please view the cause number of Ramon M. del Campo vs. City of Las Cruces Police Department in order to obtain the facts.” [sic] Complaint at 7. Where the form Complaint instructs Plaintiff to “[b]riefly state the background of your case,” Plaintiff wrote: “Please view Ramon M. del Campo vs. City of Las Cruces Police Department and attached form.” The Court notified Plaintiff that the Complaint fails to state a claim and that the Court will not comb the record of other cases and act as an advocate for Plaintiff. See Doc. 27, filed September 8, 2020 (Sweazea, J.). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the September 22, 2020 deadline. Dockets.Justia.com One of Plaintiff’s motions states that the “Social Security Administration has deemed [Plaintiff] as mentally impaired.” Motion Seeking Counsel at 1, Doc. 6, filed July 2, 2020. Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states the “court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” However, “in the context of unrepresented litigants proceeding in forma pauperis, this inquiry [involving a determination of whether there is verifiable evidence of incompetence] would usually occur after the preliminary merits screening under … 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). The Court dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), which states: “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that … the action … fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” The Court granted Plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, an opportunity to file an amended complaint. See Doc. 27, filed September 8, 2020 (granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Because it is dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim, the Court need not “inquir[e] as to whether there [is] a viable basis to invoke Rule 17.” Powell, 680 F.3d at 307. IT IS ORDERED that: (i) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (ii) Because it is dismissing this case, the Court DENIES the following motions as moot: (a) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Counsel, Doc. 6, filed July 2, 2020. (b) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Subpoenas, Doc. 7, filed July 2, 2020. (c) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Waiver of the Filing Fee, Doc. 8, filed July 2, 2020. 2 (d) Plaintiff’s Motion seeking to Submit Successive Habeas Corpus, Doc. 9, filed July 9, 2020. (e) Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Exhibit B, Doc. 10, filed July 9, 2020. (f) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking In Camera Views, Doc. 12, filed July 10, 2020. (g) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking In Camera View, Doc. 13, 2020. (h) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Public Identification of the Department of Justice US Marshal’s Security, Doc. 14, filed July 13, 2020. (i) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Subpoenas of Attorneys, Doc. 15, filed July 13, 2020. (j) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Subpoenas, Doc. 16, filed July16, 2020. (k) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order, Doc. 17, filed July 27, 2020. (l) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Recusal, Doc. 18, filed July 28, 2020. (m) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Motion Seeking Recusal, Doc. 19, filed July 30, 2020. (n) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Affidavit of the United States District Clerk’s Office, Doc. 20, filed August 3, 2020. (o) Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit All, Doc. 21, filed August 7, 2020. (p) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Subpoenas, Doc. 22, filed August 10, 2020. (q) Plaintiff’s Motion for Response, Doc. 23, filed August 11, 2020. (r) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Action, Doc. 25, filed August 27, 2020. (s) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking an Inquire Response from District Clerk’s Office, Doc. 28, filed September 11, 2020. 3 (t) Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Fraudulent Act by Deception by the District Clerk’s Office, Doc. 29, filed September 11, 2020. (u) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, Doc. 31, filed September 21, 2020. __________________________________ MARTHA VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.