Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse and Sergio Jimenez

Alexander · United States District Court for the District of New Mexico · January 26, 2026 · No. 1:26-cv-00142-SCY

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico orders pro se Plaintiff Joseph Alexander to file a long-form application to proceed in forma pauperis because his short-form application is insufficient. The Court also requires an amended complaint because the original pleading does not adequately state a claim or provide necessary jurisdictional, factual, and defendant-specific information. The Order warns that failure to comply may result in denial of in forma pauperis status or dismissal of the case.

Holdings

  1. The short-form application did not provide sufficient information for the court to determine whether Plaintiff was unable to pay the required fees, so Plaintiff was required to file the long-form application.
  2. The complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not identify what each defendant did, when the conduct occurred, how Plaintiff was harmed, or what specific legal right was violated.
  3. Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint identifying the location of the events or omissions, each defendant's residence, and the court, case name, case number, and operative complaint associated with the alleged intentional delay of the motion calendar, while complying with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's short-form application provided sufficient information to permit the court to determine whether he was unable to pay the required filing fees.
  2. Whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
  3. What information Plaintiff was required to provide in an amended complaint to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's pleading requirements.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (4)

  • Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Gustafson v. Luke, 696 Fed. Appx. 352, 354 (10th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…