AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff filed a complaint titled “Civil Complaint Discrimination” against the Defendant, seeking 1.5 billion dollars in damages. The claims were purportedly based on “numerous discrimination charges” stemming from two metropolitan court cases. The complaint listed various grievances including vandalism, seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal stop, failure to transport, excessive bail, and the non-return of the Plaintiff's money. However, the complaint lacked specific allegations of discrimination or facts to support a discrimination claim or the entitlement to the claimed damages.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the claims arose from numerous discrimination charges related to two metropolitan court cases, listing grievances such as vandalism, seizure, and false arrest, but did not provide specific allegations or facts to support a discrimination claim or the entitlement to 1.5 billion dollars in damages.
• Defendant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's complaint, under any state of facts provable under the claim, could allow the Plaintiff to recover or obtain relief.

Disposition

• The dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo, and Judge Michael E. Vigil, found the Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The Court noted that a motion under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA would be upheld if the plaintiff could not recover under any state of facts provable under the claim. The Plaintiff's complaint, titled “Civil Complaint Discrimination,” lacked specific allegations of discrimination or facts to support such a claim or the entitlement to 1.5 billion dollars in damages. Accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint as true, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff could not recover under any state of facts provable under his complaint, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision.