Archuleta v. Martinez
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez. The Court will dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff has not timely filed an amended complaint which states a claim and which shows that this Court has jurisdiction. IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (gr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. 17cv353 MV/SCY
LEONARD MARTINEZ et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an
Plaintiff’s original Complaint is largely unintelligible and it is not clear what claims
Plaintiff is asserting or whether the relief he seeks can be granted. Although Plaintiff cited
several federal statutes, there are no factual allegations that support federal jurisdiction. The
Court concluded the original Complaint failed to state a claim and did not allege sufficient facts to
support jurisdiction, dismissed the original Complaint, granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint, and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in
dismissal of this case. See Doc. 9 at 4-5.
Plaintiff subsequently filed two documents by the June 9, 2017, deadline for filing an
amended complaint. Neither of those two documents can be construed as an amended complaint
because they do not include a short and plain statement of the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction,
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief, or a demand for
the relief sought, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The first document is entitled “Notice of
International Jurisdiction Crown of ‘Guardian Eden’ vs. U.S.A.” Doc. 10, filed May 23, 2017.
The second is entitled “Habeas Corpus Rex Deus Sovereignty Ex Cathedra Diplomacy Charter (2)
(3) Treaty Union Abolishment Sanction ‘San Joaquin Del Pueblo de Canon de Rio Chama’
‘Independence Declaration’ ‘Atlantess.’”
Doc. 11, filed June 8, 2017.
documents are largely unintelligible.
The Court will dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff has not timely
filed an amended complaint which states a claim and which shows that this Court has jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”).
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?