Young v. Balderas
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson. (meq)
Case 2:20-cv-00789-WJ-SMV Document 13 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
HUGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
Court’s Order to Cure Deficiency, Doc. 9, filed September 18, 2020.
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which: (i) stated “I cannot afford an
attorney;” (ii) did not provide any information regarding her income, expenses, or assets; (iii)
requested that the filing fee be reduced to $100.00 and that the “$100 filing fee be waived post
haste given the gravity and urgency of the situation;” and (iv) asserted that “the court has no right
to request such highly sensitive financial information about litigants who are requesting fee
waivers.” Doc. 2, filed August 5, 2020 (“Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis”).
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis was
deficient because it did not include an affidavit including a statement of all of her assets as required
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See Order to Cure Deficiency, Doc. 4, filed August 12, 2020. After
explaining the deficiency in Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, the Magistrate Judge
ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file an “Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form).”
Case 2:20-cv-00789-WJ-SMV Document 13 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
Instead of complying with the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Cure Deficiency, Plaintiff filed
a motion asking “the court to assign a district judge to this case and to have a district judge render
a lawful decision on Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the $400 filing fee … because the $400
filing fee violates plaintiff’s First Amendment right to challenge the constitutionality of state
laws.” Doc. 7 at 3, filed September 2, 2020.
The undersigned denied Plaintiff’s request to reduce and waive the filing fee because the
requirement to pay the filing fee and the amount of the filing fee are established by federal statute,
ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a completed “Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form),” and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely
pay the fee or file an “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Long Form)” will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice. Order to Cure Deficiency
at 3. The Court dismisses this case because Plaintiff did not pay the fee or file an “Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)” by the October 9, 2020,
Because it is dismissing this case, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for a Speedy Hearing
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 57, which allows the Court to order a speedy hearing of a declaratoryjudgment action, as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that:
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Speedy Hearing Under Rule 57 of Fed. R. Civ. P., Doc. 12,
filed October 9, 2020, is DENIED as moot.
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
CHIEF 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?