Da-Quan v. LNU

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHARLES WARREN DA-QUAN,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:25-cv-293 SMD/JMR
FNU LNU,
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court following Plaintiff Charles Warren Da-Quan’s failure
to cure deficiencies as directed. Plaintiff is incarcerated and is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff initiated
this case by filing a Letter Pleading Regarding Civil Rights Claims on March 21, 2025. (Doc. 1).
On the same day, the Clerk’s Office mailed Plaintiff a blank § 1983 complaint and application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff did not return the forms. By an Order to Cure Deficiencies
(“Cure Order”) entered January 9, 2026, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a complaint on the
§ 1983 form, and to either prepay the $405 civil filing fee or, alternatively, file a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis within thirty days. (Doc. 9); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (providing that all
prisoner-plaintiffs who do not prepay the filing fee must file an in forma pauperis motion and a
certified copy of a six-month inmate account statement). The Order warns that the failure to timely
comply with both directives may result in dismissal of this case without further notice.
The deadline to file a complaint on the § 1983 form and address the civil filing fee
requirement expired February 9, 2026. Plaintiff did not return the forms or otherwise comply.
Instead, he filed a document titled “Objections to Cure Deficiencies.” (Doc. 10). The document
Case 1:25-cv-00293-SMD-JMR Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 2

2
is mostly illegible and appears to include arguments relating to a New York state case. The Court
will dismiss the opening Letter Pleading (Doc. 1) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for “failure to
prosecute [and] comply with the rules of civil procedure or court’s orders.” Olsen v. Mapes, 333
F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Sheptin v. Corr. Healthcare Mgmt. Contractor Co.,
288 F. App’x 538, 540-41 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing [Plaintiff’s] action without prejudice based upon his failure to comply with”
§ 1915(a).”); Gonzales v. Bernalillo Cnty. Dist. Ct., 640 F. App’x 759, 762 (10th Cir. 2016)
(same).
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff Charles Warren Da-Quan’s opening Letter Pleading
(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court will
enter a separate judgment closing this civil case.
………………………………………….
SARAH M. DAVENPORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00293-SMD-JMR Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 2