Mary E. Martinez v. ABQ Code Enforcement, Angelo Matzer, Ray Velardez, and William (Josh) Gallegos

Summary

These Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition concern a pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and court orders requiring an adequately pleaded amended complaint. The magistrate judge recommends declining to accept the plaintiff’s 64-page filing as an amended complaint, dismissing without prejudice any intended federal claims, and remanding the remaining state-law claims to state court. The document addresses federal-question jurisdiction, pleading requirements, potential civil-rights and disability claims, and supplemental jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A removed action does not present a federal question merely because the notice of removal characterizes ambiguous allegations as constitutional or federal claims; the well-pleaded complaint must establish that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial federal question.
2. A pleading fails Rule 8(a) when it does not provide a short and plain statement identifying the claims, the facts supporting them, the conduct of each defendant, and the legal rights allegedly violated, such that defendants receive fair notice.
3. Where the intended federal claims are dismissed without prejudice and no federal claims remain, the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining unclear state-law claims and remand them to state court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's complaint established federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded-complaint rule.
2. Whether Plaintiff's initial complaint stated a federal claim or otherwise complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
3. Whether Plaintiff's 64-page narrative filing should be accepted as an amended complaint.
4. Whether the court should dismiss the intended federal claims without prejudice and remand the remaining state-law claims.

Disposition

other