Opinion
No. CIV 05-807 MCA/RHS.
January 18, 2006
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Court's sua sponte inquiry as to whether certain claims should be dismissed, and the following motions: (1) Defendant Albuquerque Police Department's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 10] filed on September 13, 2005; (2) Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement [Doc. 13] filed on September 14, 2005; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement [Doc. 20] filed on December 2, 2005. Having considered the parties' submissions, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that there is good cause for denying Plaintiff's motion for settlement, dismissing Defendant Albuquerque Police Department from this action, and requiring Plaintiff to file a more definite statement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). The Court will also order Plaintiff to show cause why certain claims set forth in her Complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
I first address the motion to dismiss Defendant Albuquerque Police Department. "[T]he New Mexico District Court has consistently held that a police department is not a legal entity which may be held liable apart from a municipal corporation."Diaz v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., Civ. No. 00-700 JC/DJS, slip. op. at 8-9 (D.N.M. Aug. 1, 2001) (memorandum opinion and order granting motions to dismiss). Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the "Albuquerque Police Department" are not viable and must be dismissed.
While this technical defect might be cured by an amendment to Plaintiff's Complaint, such an amendment would be futile because governmental entities and government officials in their official capacity are subject to suit under Section 1983 only if the challenged actions were taken pursuant to an established institutional policy or custom or by an official with final policy-making authority, see Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238, 1249-51 (10th Cir. 1999), and the remaining allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint are wholly insufficient to state such a claim, see Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 994-96 (10th Cir. 1996).
I next turn to Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement. Defendants request a more definite statement from Plaintiff because her Complaint consists of a lengthy, single-spaced, unnumbered narrative that is loosely organized into three counts. While the pleadings of pro se litigants are to be liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), this rule does not relieve Plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), nor does it allow this Court to supply additional factual allegations to round out Plaintiff's Complaint or construct a legal theory on her behalf, see Whitney v. N.M., 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
Applying these principles, I agree with Defendants that Plaintiff's Complaint does not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) and is so vague or ambiguous that neither Defendants nor the Court can reasonably ascertain which of Plaintiff's potential legal theories apply to which officers or which of Plaintiff's potential legal theories apply to which incidents. Thus, a more definite statement is warranted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).
The most that the Court can glean from Plaintiff's Complaint is that she appears to allege that certain officers, acting in their individual capacities, violated her civil rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to three separate incidents: (1) on or about October 6, 2003, Defendants Massert and Baca may have arrested or detained Plaintiff in relation to a dispute between her and her landlord; (2) on one or more occasions between April 1, 2004, and April 14, 2004, Defendant Serta may have arrested or detained Plaintiff when he encountered her at a doctor's office; and (3) in March or April 2005, Defendant Quillman may have seized a firearm from Plaintiff's son, and that firearm was never returned to her. Liberally construed, these allegations appear to support a claim that Officer Quillman seized a firearm belonging to Plaintiff without probable cause, and that Officers Massert, Baca, and Serta arrested or detained Plaintiff without probable cause and/or used excessive force against her during an arrest or detention.
The Court cannot ascertain from Plaintiff's Complaint any viable claim against Defendant Rowland, who seems to be included in the Complaint simply by virtue of the fact that he was the Independent Review Officer who reviewed some allegations that Plaintiff submitted to him after the incidents occurred. In addition, the Court cannot ascertain from Plaintiff's Complaint how any of the factual allegations therein could reasonably support any viable constitutional claims that fall outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment, or any viable claims under any laws pertaining to "gross negligence, collusions, co-conspiracy, constructive fraud/cover-up perjury/slander per se; libel per se" as to any Defendant. Therefore, in addition to ordering Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement as to her Fourth Amendment claims regarding the involvement of Defendants Massert, Baca, Serta, and Quillman in the three incidents mentioned above, the Court also will order Plaintiff to show cause why all her other claims (including those against Defendant Rowland) should not be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
I forewarn Plaintiff that failure to timely file a more definite statement or a response to this Order to Show Cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to the dismissal of all her remaining claims with prejudice.
Finally, I will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement because this Court lacks the authority to compel any of the Defendants to settle this case. Defendants have indicated that they are not interested in pursuing a settlement conference at this juncture.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Albuquerque Police Department's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 10] is GRANTED, and Defendant Albuquerque Police Department is dismissed from this action with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement [Doc. 13] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended pleading by no later than February 6, 2006, that (1) sets forth her claims in numbered paragraphs, each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b), (2) identifies which of her claims or legal theories applies to which Defendants; and (3) identifies which of her claims or legal theories applies to which incidents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a written response to this Court by no later than February 6, 2006, showing cause as to why (1) all claims against Defendant Rowland, (2) all claims for "gross negligence, collusions, co-conspiracy, constructive fraud/cover-up perjury/slander per se; libel per se," and (3) all constitutional claims that fall outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement [Doc. 20] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.