Belinda Robertson v. Theodore Markowski and Stephen Eaton

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed without prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s claims against her private attorney and guardian ad litem. The court held that the complaint and amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants were not alleged to have acted under color of state law, dismissed claims based on federal criminal statutes for lack of a private right of action, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and denied the plaintiff’s jury-trial motion.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 claim because the amended complaint did not allege that Markowski or Eaton acted under color of state law.
2. Plaintiff's claims based on alleged violations of federal criminal statutes failed to state a claim because criminal statutes do not provide private civil causes of action.
3. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.
4. Plaintiff's motion requesting a jury trial was denied because the court was dismissing the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a private attorney and a guardian ad litem without alleging that either defendant acted under color of state law.
2. Whether plaintiff could maintain civil claims based on alleged violations of federal criminal statutes.
3. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.
4. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial after the action was dismissed.

Disposition

dismissed