Langworthy v. State of New Mexico et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales dismissing 1 Complaint; and striking 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GENEVA LANGWORTHY,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:24-cv-01229-KG-LF

STATE OF NEW MEXICO and
COLFAX COUNTY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint for a Civil Case,
Doc. 1, filed December 5, 2024 (“Complaint”), and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed December 5, 2024 (“Application”).
The only allegations in the Complaint state: “Colfax County and the State of New Mexico
denied me equal protection under the NM Inspection of Public Records Act. I have been denied
access to the civill [sic] courts to seek relief.” Complaint at 4. Plaintiff seeks damages and
prospective injunctive relief. See Complaint at 4.
Regarding Plaintiff’s claims against the State of New Mexico, United States Magistrate
Judge Laura Fashing notified Plaintiff that:
Generally, states and their agencies are protected from suit by
sovereign immunity, as guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment.
“The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that
nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in
federal court.” Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356,
363, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). However, there are
three exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment's guarantee of
sovereign immunity to states:
First, a state may consent to suit in federal court.
Second, Congress may abrogate a state's sovereign

immunity by appropriate legislation when it acts
under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Finally, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct.
441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), a plaintiff may bring suit
against individual state officers acting in their official
capacities if the complaint alleges an ongoing
violation of federal law and the plaintiff seeks
prospective relief.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1166 (10th Cir.
2012) (internal citations omitted and altered).
Levy v. Kansas Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation Services, 789 F.3d 1164, 1169
(10th Cir. 2015) . . .
The Complaint fails to show that the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims
against the State of New Mexico because there are no factual allegations showing
that any of the three exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment's guarantee of
sovereign immunity to states and their agencies apply in this case.
Order to Show Cause at 2-3, Doc. 5, filed December 6, 2024.
Judge Fashing also notified Plaintiff that:
The Complaint fails to state a claim against Colfax County. “[T]o state a claim in
federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her;
when [each] defendant did it; how [each] defendant’s action harmed him or her;
and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes [each] defendant violated.”
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492
F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). There are no allegations
explaining what Colfax County did to Plaintiff and when Colfax County did it.
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Colfax County “denied me equal protection”
is not sufficient.
We use the Iqbal/Twombly standard to determine whether Plaintiffs
have stated a plausible claim. Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152,
1162–63 (10th Cir. 2011). In applying this standard, we take
Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded facts as true, view them in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, and draw all reasonable inferences from the
facts in favor of Plaintiffs. Id. at 1162. A plausible claim includes
facts from which we may reasonably infer Defendant's liability. Id.
at 1163. Plaintiffs must nudge the claim across the line from
conceivable or speculative to plausible. Id. Allegations that are
“‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability” stop short of that
line. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
2

544, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Labels,
conclusions, formulaic recitations of elements, and naked assertions
will not suffice. Id. An allegation is conclusory where it states an
inference without stating underlying facts or is devoid of any factual
enhancement. Kellum v. Mares, 657 Fed. App'x 763, 770 (10th Cir.
2016) (unpublished) (citing Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014)). Conclusory allegations are “not entitled to the assumption
of truth.” Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1193 (10th Cir.
2012). In fact, we disregard conclusory statements and look to the
remaining factual allegations to see whether Plaintiffs have stated a
plausible claim. Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277,
1282 (10th Cir. 2019).
Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021); see also
Waller v. City and County of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277, 1283-84 (10th Cir. 2019)
(explaining that to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show: (i) execution
of a municipal policy or custom inflicted the injury; (ii) there is a direct causal link
between the policy or custom and the alleged injury; and (iii) in some cases, the
municipal action was taken with deliberate indifference as to its known or obvious
consequences).
Order to Show Cause at 3-4.
Judge Fashing ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case
and to file an amended complaint, and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely show cause and file
an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. See Order to Show Cause at 6. Plaintiff
did not show cause or file an amended complaint by the December 27, 2029, deadline.
The Court dismisses this case because: (i) the Complaint does not show that the Court has
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the State of New Mexico; (ii) the Complaint fails to
state a claim against Colfax County; (iii) Plaintiff has not shown cause why the Court should not
dismiss this case; and (iv) Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to
Judge Fashing’s Order to Show Cause.
Judge Fashing also notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not sign her Application to proceed
in forma pauperis and that the Court must strike the Application if Plaintiff does not promptly sign
the Application. See Order to Show Cause at 6 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), ordering Plaintiff to
3

sign the Application and notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely sign the Application may result
in the Court striking the Application). The Court strikes Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma
pauperis because Plaintiff did not sign the Application by the December 27, 2024, deadline.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i)

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

(ii)

The Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed December 5, 2024.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4