Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 35 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR
PRO SE PRISONER CASES 18-MC-00004-35
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
This Administrative Order supersedes prior District Court procedures and policies for
preliminary screening of pro se prisoner cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
Rule 4 Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, and Rule 4 Governing Section 2254 Proceedings
by: (1) changing the timing for entry of the Order of Reference to a Magistrate Judge under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); and (2) approving use of a Prisoner Case Management Order in pro se
prisoner cases.
Federal law, particularly the Prison Litigation Reform Act, requires the Court to conduct
a preliminary screening of all pro se prisoner cases, including:
(1) prisoner civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), including prisoner civil rights cases
removed from state court (nature of suit 550 and 555);
(2) habeas corpus cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by prisoners in custody under a state
conviction and sentence (nature of suit 530);
(3) habeas corpus cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by prisoners in custody under a federal
conviction and sentence (nature of suit 510);
(4) habeas corpus cases under the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1303 by prisoners
in custody under a tribal conviction and sentence (nature of suit 530);
(5) habeas corpus cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by alien detainees in custody pursuant to
the Immigration and Nationality Act (nature of suit 463);
(6) habeas corpus cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the administration of parole,
computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary actions, prison
transfers, type of detention and prison conditions (nature of suit 555);
(7) petitions by prisoners for writs other than habeas corpus, including mandamus, quo
warranto, coram nobis, or audita querela (nature of suit 540).
Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 35 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 3
The Court mandatorily must dismiss any pro se prisoner case that fails for any of the reasons
enumerated in the statutes and rules. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases.
The Pro Se Clerks perform the Court’s preliminary screening function and prepare
memorandum opinions and orders of dismissal for consideration and entry by the assigned
District Judge. Only those cases that survive preliminary screening proceed forward to proposed
findings and a recommended disposition by a Magistrate Judge under § 636(b)(1)(B). At
present, the Court’s practice is to enter Orders of Reference to a Magistrate Judge under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) in every pro se prisoner case at the time the case is opened. This
Administrative Order discontinues the automatic entry of § 636(b)(1)(B) Orders of Reference in
all prisoner cases at the start of the case. When preliminary screening is completed, for those
cases that are not subject to mandatory dismissal, the Pro Se Clerks will prepare the §
636(b)(1)(B) Order of Reference for submission to the assigned District Judge at the same time
the Pro Se Clerks prepare the order to answer or for issuance and service of process. Upon entry
of the § 636(b)(1)(B) Order of Reference by the District Judge, responsibility for the case will
shift from the Pro Se Clerks to the Magistrate Judge’s chambers.
During the screening stage, the assigned Magistrate Judge continues to have the authority
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) to enter any pretrial orders requested by the Pro Se Clerks or
deemed necessary and appropriate by the Magistrate Judge in prisoner cases. The filing of
multiple amendments and supplements to the complaint or petition, submission of evidence and
documents for the Court’s consideration, and bringing of premature motions for a variety of
relief, such as discovery, service of process, and default judgments significantly burdens the
Court and delays the preliminary screening process. In order to institute early control over
Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 35 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 3
prisoner case submissions, expedite preliminary screening, provide due process in the form of
notice and information to the pro se prisoners, and reduce unnecessary work in processing
filings, the Magistrate Judge is authorized to enter a Pro Se Prisoner Case Management Order in
a form similar to the attached form.
DONE at Albuquerque this 6th day of September, 2018.
FOR THE COURT:
______________________________________
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 35-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOHN DOE,
[Plaintiff/Petitioner],
vs. No. CV _________________
JANE DOE, (et al.,)
[Defendant(s)/Respondent(s)].
PRO SE PRISONER
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has received and docketed the
[Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint/Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus] filed pro se by
[Plaintiff/Petitioner] John Doe on ________________, 20___ [and removed to this Court by
Defendant(s) on _______________________, 20___]. [Plaintiff/Petitioner/the parties] shall
include the case number, CV __________________, on all papers filed in this proceeding.
[Plaintiff/Petitioner/the parties] must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Local Rules of this Court, and any Order of the Court. Failure to comply with the Rules or
Court Orders may result in dismissal of this case or other sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see,
also, Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1994). [Plaintiff/Petitioner/the
parties] [is/are] obligated to keep the Court advised of any changes in [Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s/the
party’s] mailing address. Failure to keep the Court informed of [Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s/the
party’s] correct address may also result in dismissal of the case or other sanctions. D.N.M. LR-
Civ. 83.6.
Because [Plaintiff/Petitioner] is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court is obligated to
conduct a preliminary screening of the [Complaint/Petition]. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A/28 U.S.C. §
1
Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 35-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 3
1915(e)(2)/Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings/Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings]. Whenever a prisoner brings a civil action against
government officials, the Court is obligated to screen the prisoner’s complaint or petition. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A states:
“The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity.”
...
On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b). The Court has a similar obligation to screen the complaint when a
pro se plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2):
“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that—
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
Any request to the Court for relief must be in the form of a motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b).
The filing of excessive motions may cause substantial delay in completion of the Court’s
preliminary screening and resolution of the case. [Plaintiff/Petitioner/the parties] should avoid
filing unnecessary motions. Requests for service of process, discovery, and submissions of proof
are premature and unavailable prior to the Court’s completion of its screening obligation. See
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 213-214 (2007). If [Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s] [Complaint/Petition] is
2
Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 35-1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 3
not dismissed on initial screening, the Court will enter further orders governing service of
process, discovery, and scheduling. [Plaintiff/Petitioner/the parties] should not send any letters to
the Court other than transmittal letters or requests for information or copies. All mail relating to
this case must be directed to the Clerk of the Court. [Plaintiff/Petitioner/the parties] [is/are] not to
send any mail directly to the assigned District Judge or the assigned Magistrate Judge.
[OPTIONAL : In order to permit the Court to complete its initial screening obligation,
[Plaintiff/Petitioner/the parties] may not file any further papers in this case except for:
(1) a motion for leave to amend the [Complaint/Petition]. [Plaintiff/Petitioner]
may only file one (1) motion for leave to amend;
(2) a response to, objection to, or request for modification of, a Court Order;
(3) a motion for extension of time to comply with or respond to a Court Order;
(4) a motion or application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs under
28 U.S.C. § 1915;
(5) a motion requesting appointment of counsel;
(6) a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, signed
under penalty of perjury and supported by good faith factual allegations that
[Plaintiff/Petitioner] is in immediate danger of serious bodily injury or will
suffer immediate, irreparable harm if not granted relief by the Court;
[(7) a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12];
[(8) a motion to remand to state court;]
(9) a notice of change of address; or
(10) a motion for leave to file any other paper, supported by a detailed
explanation, signed under penalty of perjury, showing good cause why
filing of the paper cannot wait until after the Court has completed
its screening of the case.]
IT IS ORDERED that this Case Management Order shall govern proceedings in this
case until further order of the Court.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
District Version v6.2.1 LIVE DB https://ecf.nmd.circ10.dcn/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?10289612846186
Notices
1:18-mc-00004 Administrative Orders
U.S. District Court
District of New Mexico - Version 6.2.1
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 9/6/2018 at 4:42 PM MDT and filed on 9/6/2018
Case Name: Administrative Orders
Case Number: 1:18-mc-00004
Filer:
Document Number: 35
Docket Text:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: In the Matter of Procedures and Policies for Pro Se Prisoner Cases. (Attachments: # (1) Case Management Order) (kmk)
1:18-mc-00004 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
1:18-mc-00004 Notice has been delivered by fax to:
1:18-mc-00004 Notice has been delivered by USPS to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1167529506 [Date=9/6/2018] [FileNumber=9414941-0]
[630c09dfbf0d37fad811c550e528c053dcf7df326ea66b8069276263044279aa6013
136a25e2cfaa1c14eca9e919128668bcda3a6d5ad4a9d39c27ea84a6973e]]
Document description: Case Management Order
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1167529506 [Date=9/6/2018] [FileNumber=9414941-1]
[a8ba024643c43b59a054e4a6ebddfe31cb8b2130f6ee12eb9f2afbaa46363f789f43
a9bcc4ff0aa1d47471b3fcb47243d7f900fd2e471553cc77c35e72e50f8b]]
1 of 1 9/6/2018 4:43 PM
