District Court, D. New Mexico, 2020

Owen v. Curry County Detention Center

Owen v. Curry County Detention Center
District Court, D. New Mexico · Decided May 6, 2020
Owen v. Curry County Detention Center

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

FRANKIE J. OWEN, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 19-1222 KG-SMV CURRY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL This matter is before the Court following Plaintiff’s repeated failure to cure deficiencies in this civil rights action. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Curry County Detention Center (CCDC). He initiated this action with a handwritten letter. The letter alleges the CCDC “Delta Pod” features hazardous and unhealthy conditions. (Doc. 1) at 1. On January 2, 2020, the Court entered its first Order to Cure Deficiencies. (Doc. 2). The Order observed that Plaintiff’s pleading was not signed under penalty of perjury and did not appear on the proper 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form. Plaintiff also failed to prepay the $400 filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion. The Court directed him to cure these deficiencies within thirty days. The Clerk’s Office also mailed Plaintiff a form complaint and in forma pauperis motion, along with instructions. The instructions explain that any in forma pauperis motion must be accompanied by a six-month inmate account statement.

Plaintiff complied, in part. He filed an amended complaint and in forma pauperis motion, but he failed to submit a six-month inmate account statement. (Docs. 3, 4). The inmate account statement is required by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). On March 25, 2020, the Court entered a second Order directing Plaintiff to file his account statement. (Doc.

5). Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to timely comply, the Court would dismiss this case. Id. at 1. The deadline to file the account statement was April 24, 2020. Plaintiff did not comply or otherwise respond to the Order. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n. 3 (10" Cir. 2003) (“Rule 41(b) ... has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the ... court’s orders.”).

IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.

2. The Court will enter a separate judgment closing the civil case.

Mogetn UN STATES DISTRIC DGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.