Gressett v. Roy et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales dismissing 12 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (tah)
Case 1:22-cv-00133-KG-KK Document 17 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHARLES ROY, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Amended Complaint,
Doc. 12, filed April 15, 2022.
Plaintiff asserted civil rights violations claims and sought criminal charges against 22
Defendants using the form "Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983." See Doc. 1,
filed February 23, 2022 ("Complaint").
United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa notified Plaintiff that: (i) the Complaint
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because it failed to state with particularity what
each Defendant did to Plaintiff and when the Defendants committed these alleged unspecified
actions; (ii) if Plaintiff is asserting claims on behalf of her family, the Complaint fails to state a
claim for her family members because a pro litigant may bring her own claims to federal court
without counsel, but not the claims of others; and (iii) the Complaint fails to state a claim to the
extent it seeks criminal charges against Defendants because a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution of another. See Doc. 10, filed April 12, 2022 (stating “[T]o
state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her;
when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific
Case 1:22-cv-00133-KG-KK Document 17 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3
legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated”) (quoting Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007)).
Judge Khalsa ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is difficult to understand.
The Amended Complaint
appears to name 18 Defendants who were healthcare workers at a nursing home. See Amended
Complaint at 1. It also appears that Plaintiff may be asserting claims against several doctors and
other persons. See Amended Complaint at 4, 9. Plaintiff states: (i) "corruption through medical
abuse was & still is a liability for me & family ... The medical abuse consist of recieving care not
needed;" (ii) "The medical forms are located at Hospitle Advent Health City Killeen TX Baylor
Scott & White Hospitle Temple TX the Millitary Base located in Killeen TX;" (iii) "An attact
was brought against my family carried as victims do to exstortion, pysical violence, sexual
assult;" (iv) "taking money from accounts;" (v) "Poping knees out of place, other computer keys
being used to move eyes in and out slightly out of socket, & snatching body back & forth;" and
(vi) "Oral confession me & my family are victims of check fraud, & sex trafficing;" [sic]
Amended Complaint at 1, 3, 4, 5.
The Amended Complaint indicates the events giving rise to this case occurred in Killeen
and Temple, Texas, which are located in the Western District of Texas. The Court did not
transfer this case to the Western District of Texas because Plaintiff, who lives in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, alleged in her original Complaint that some of the events giving rise to this case
occurred in the District of New Mexico. See Complaint at 5, Doc. 1, filed February 23, 2022
(stating "I moved to Albuquerque NM in 2019 at the end of that year & the individuals followed
me down here to New Mexico ... the trafficing took place here in New Mexico".
Case 1:22-cv-00133-KG-KK Document 17 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3
The Court dismisses this case because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Despite Judge Khalsa's notice of the allegations required to state a
claim, the Amended Complaint does not state with particularity what each Defendant did to
Plaintiff and when the Defendants committed these alleged unspecified actions. While the
Amended Complaint identifies certain acts such as "taking money from accounts," popping
"knees out of place," moving "eyes in and out slightly out of socket," and "sex trafficing," the
Amended Complaint does not indicate which Defendants performed those acts. A complaint
must "give [each] defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Because Plaintiff does not
indicate which Defendants allegedly performed the acts she complains of, the Amended
Complaint does not give Defendants fair notice of Plaintiff's claims and the grounds upon which
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?