Barnes v. Fifth Judicial District Court et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHARLES D.J. BARNES,
Petitioner,
v. No. 24-cv-0248-MIS-KK
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court following Petitioner Charles D.J. Barnes’ failure to comply
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) as directed. Barnes is a state prisoner and is proceeding pro se. He
initiated this case by filing a Habeas Corpus Direct Appeal/Administrative Appeal from New
Mexico’s Fifth Judicial District Court (“Opening Petition”). ECF No. 1. The Opening Petition
ostensibly seeks to appeal a state trial court ruling. It also cites 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and may
challenge a state criminal conviction. After filing the Opening Petition, Barnes submitted over
twenty appendices, briefs, notices, and supplemental filings. See ECF Nos. 2-11; 13-25. The
submissions consist of over 400 pages. Some of the submissions raise habeas arguments, and
others appear to assert civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
By an Order entered April 15, 2025, the Court explained that it cannot sort through various
filings and supplements in an attempt to piece together Barnes’ claim (“Screening Ruling”). See
ECF No. 26; see also Glenn v. First Nat’l Bank in Grand Junction, 868 F.2d 368, 371 (10th Cir.
1989) (“The law recognizes a significant difference between notice pleading and ‘shotgun’
pleading.”). Shotgun filings are “pernicious” because they “unfairly burden defendants and
courts” by shifting onto them “the burden of identifying plaintiff’s genuine claims and determining
Case 1:24-cv-00248-MIS-KK Document 35 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
which of those claims might have legal support.” D.J. Young Publ’g Co., LLC ex rel. Young v.
Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte, Civil Action No. 12–CV–2011–KHV, 2012 WL 4211669, at *3 (D.
Kan. Sep. 18, 2012); see also McNamara v. Brauchler, 570 F. App’x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2014)
(allowing shotgun pleadings to survive screening “would force the Defendants to carefully comb
through [the documents] to ascertain which … pertinent allegations to which a response is
warranted”).
The Court directed Barnes to file a single, amended pleading that complies with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a). That rule requires each federal litigant to file a short and plain statement of the
grounds for relief. Barnes was advised that any amended pleading must contain legible
handwriting; indicate who did what to whom; and contain a clear request for relief. The Screening
Ruling explained the difference between habeas proceedings, which challenge a criminal
conviction, and civil rights actions, which are used to challenge prison conditions. Barnes was
advised that the Court will not consider 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and habeas claims in one
proceeding. See Sherratt v. Friel, No. 07-4155, 2008 WL 313177, *1 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming
dismissal of habeas petition that referenced prison conditions, since those claims should be brought
under Section 1983); Bentley v. Kan. Sec’y of Corr., No. 99-3163, 1999 WL 617719, *1 (10th Cir.
1999) (same). The Screening Ruling warns that the failure to timely comply with the above
instructions may result in dismissal without further notice. It also warns that if Barnes continues
to file piecemeal supplements, the Court may dismiss this case for violating Rule 8(a).
Barnes did not follow these instructions. After entry of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order, he filed eight submissions:
(a) Brief and Analysis of Grievances that Include Violations of Human Rights – 8
Case 1:24-cv-00248-MIS-KK Document 35 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Amendment, 9 Amendment, Corrected Statutory Violations of Privacy (ECF No. 27), which states
prison officials do not “seek the … truth” and appears to allege corrections officers listened to
Barnes’ private conversations.
(b) Request for Propia Persona Forms, which references certain attorneys and a “civil
presentation hearing” (ECF No. 28).
(c) Notification of Authorities/Request Motion of Resolution 1 Amendment; 6
Amendment; 9 Amendment (ECF No. 29), which references a document exchange that resulted in
out-of-order pages.
(d) Notification to Court of Non-Transfer of Documents, which appears to state Barnes
cannot comply with certain document requests (ECF No. 30).
(e) Brief/Analysis on Classification Appeals that Concern Error[s in] JNS [Judgment and
Sentence] and Classification (ECF No. 31), which appears to reference a prison classification
decision and an illegal state sentence.
(f) A second copy of ECF No. 31, submitted three weeks later as ECF No. 32.
(g) Notification of Authorities/1 Amendment/6 Amendment Art. VI U.S.C. (ECF No. 33),
in which Barnes asks the Court to check his prison account balance.
(h) Notification of Authorities/1 Amendment; 6 Amendment VI Amendment (ECF No.
34), which requests paperwork regarding disabilities.
These filings do not comply with Rule 8(a) or the Screening Ruling, for several reasons.
The Court still cannot discern which claims Plaintiff seeks to assert. His claims are not confined
to a single pleading, as instructed, and striking extraneous submissions would not cure the defect
because each filing appears to focus on a different legal theory. The filings are also sometimes
Case 1:24-cv-00248-MIS-KK Document 35 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
illegible. It is not clear who did what to whom, nor do the filings properly identify the
respondents/defendants who were involved in the alleged wrongdoing. The captions of the filings
variously list the New Mexico Corrections Department; certain prisons; and possibly this Court,
which is not involved with Barnes’ state conviction or prison conditions. Barnes also continues
to assert civil rights claims alongside his habeas claims.
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
“failure to … comply with the … court’s orders” and, alternatively, pursuant to Rule 8(a) for failure
to file a short, plain statement as instructed. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th
Cir. 2003). The dismissal will be entered without prejudice, since it is unclear what specific
claims are being dismissed. See Fontana v. Pearson, 772 F. App’x 728, 729 (10th Cir. 2019) (“If
the complainant fails to comply with Rule 8, a court may dismiss an action with or without
prejudice.”); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty. Justice Ctr., 492 F.3d
1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying the same rule under Rule 41).
Most inmates are able to refile their claims following a dismissal without prejudice. In
this case, however, it is not possible to discern the scope of the claims or when such claims arise
for the purposes of any statute of limitations. To the extent some claim is barred by the statute of
limitations, the Ehrenhaus factors still support this ruling. See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d
916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (requiring courts to consider factors such as prejudice; interference with
the judicial process; the movant’s culpability; prior dismissal warnings; and the efficacy of lesser
sanctions). Barnes was given detailed instructions on how to comply with Rule 8(a) and was
warned that this case would be dismissed if he failed to file a cogent pleading and continued to
submit piecemeal supplements. Barnes’ numerous piecemeal pleadings interfere with the judicial
Case 1:24-cv-00248-MIS-KK Document 35 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
process. Ordering any state official to answer the filings would cause prejudice, as the claims are
still unclear. It appears unlikely that additional admonishments would change the result. And,
while Barnes may suffer from mental health issues, see ECF No. 34, he is a frequent filer and has
been counseled many times on Rule 8(a) and the federal pleading requirements. See Barnes v.
N.M. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-2095, 2022 WL 2189548, at *3 (10th Cir. June 17, 2022) (affirming
dismissal of Barnes’ civil complaint); Barnes v. New Mexico Dep't of Corr., No. 1:22-cv-00468-
KWR-LF, 2023 WL 1993827, at *1 (D.N.M. Feb. 14, 2023) (counseling Barnes on Rule 8(a) and
the federal pleading requirements).
In sum, dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Rule 8(a), Rule 41(b), and - if it applies -
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992). Moreover, because this Court has
not assessed any filing fee or considered Barnes’ in forma pauperis status, this dismissal “does not
count as a strike under [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(g).” See Carbajal v. McCann, 808 F. App’x 620, 629
(10th Cir. 2020) (addressing the three-strike rule for in forma pauperis litigants). To the extent
Barnes’ filings raise any state habeas claims, the Court will also deny a certificate of appealability
(COA) under Habeas Corpus Rule 11. See Barnes v. N.M. Dep’t of Corr., Summary Order
entered October 31, 2023 (requiring the District Court to grant or deny a COA following the
dismissal of Barnes’ piecemeal pleadings).
IT IS ORERED that this case, including each amended submission (ECF. 27 - 34) filed
by Charles D.J. Barnes, is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) and,
alternatively, pursuant to Rule 8(a).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent necessary, a certificate of appealability
is DENIED.
Case 1:24-cv-00248-MIS-KK Document 35 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court will enter a separate judgment closing the
civil case.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00248-MIS-KK Document 35 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 6