Del Campo v. State of New Mexico, No. 2:2020cv00635 - Document 36 (D.N.M. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS by District Judge Martha Vazquez DENYING AS MOOT 27 MOTION for Order; DENYING AS MOOT 31 MOTION to Amend/Correct; DENYING AS MOOT 25 MOTION for Order; and DENYING AS MOOT 28 MOTION for Order. See order for specifics. (gr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Del Campo v. State of New Mexico Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO RAMON M. DEL CAMPO, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:20-cv-00635-MV-GBW STATE OF NEW MEXICO, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se pro se Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause why the Court should not impose filing restrictions. See Doc. 22, filed August 18, 2020 (“Order to Show Cause”), and Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Action in Reference to the Infringements by Dona Ana County Detention Center, Aramark, Trinity, Keefe, Corizon by Combing thru the Record (the Kiosk) Tele Messaging System of DACDC, Doc. 25, filed August 27, 2020. After describing the procedure for imposing filing restrictions and Plaintiff’s abusive filing history, the Court set forth proposed filing restrictions and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose those filing restrictions. See Order to Show Cause at 3-4 (noting that Plaintiff filed six cases on June 29, 2020, filed more than 90 motions, some of which he filed after cases had been dismissed, and repeatedly failed to comply with Court Orders to file amended complaints. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause by the September 1, 2020, deadline. Dockets.Justia.com The Court now imposes the following filing restrictions on Applicant. Plaintiff will be enjoined from making further filings in this case except objections to this order, a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis; and the Clerk will be directed to return without filing any additional submissions by Plaintiff in this case other than objections to this order, a notice of appeal, or a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, unless a licensed attorney who is admitted to practice before this Court and has appeared in this action signs the proposed filing. Plaintiff also will be enjoined from initiating further litigation in this Court, and the Clerk will be directed to return without filing any initial pleading that he submits, unless a licensed attorney who is admitted to practice before this Court signs the pleading. IT IS ORDERED that: (i) The filing restrictions described above are now IMPOSED. (ii) The following motions are DENIED as moot because they were filed after the Court entered Final Judgment: (a) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Action in Reference to the Infringements by Dona Ana County Detention Center, Aramark, Trinity, Keefe, Corizon by Combing thru the Record (the Kiosk) Tele Messaging System of DACDC, Doc. 25, filed August 27, 2020. (b) Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking an Inquire (Response) from the District Clerk’s Office, Doc. 27, filed September 11, 2020. 2 (c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit the Fraudulent Act by Deception by the District Clerk’s Office for the 10th Circuit, Doc. 28, filed September 11, 2020. (d) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, Doc. 31, filed September 21, 2020. _________________________________ MARTHA VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
