Hayes v. Gray et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MICHAEL OSHEA HAYES,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-00069-WJ-JFR
CYFD EMPLOYEES,
APD OFFICERS and
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff filed the Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 	See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed
January 14, 2026. This case arises from a child custody issue. Plaintiff asserted claims against
District Attorney Troy Gray, CYFD employee Kimberly Ibarro, Albuquerque Police Officers, and
state-court Judge W. Parnell. Many of the factual allegations are vague, for example, “unlawful
investigation, false statements, tainted evidence,” “due process violations,” “closed case reopened
without new evidence,” “rumor-based prosecution,” and “retaliatory + selective enforcements.”
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar notified Plaintiff that the Complaint
fails to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it does not explain what each Defendant
did to Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 	See Order for Amended
Complaint, Doc. 7, filed January 16, 2026 (notifying Plaintiff that “[T]o state a claim in federal
court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when [each] defendant did
it; how [each] defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
Case 1:26-cv-00069-WJ-JFR Document 15 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
believes [each] defendant violated”) (quoting Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at
Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007)).
Plaintiff filed a two-and-a-half page Amended Complaint that alleges: (i) APD Officers
supplied CYFD with false information; (ii) CYFD relied on the information to initiate child-
welfare proceedings; (iii) Plaintiff was not provided with “meaningful notice” of the factual basis
for removal of the child; (iv) Plaintiff was denied a “meaningful opportunity” to contest the
allegations; and (v) “Defendants retaliated” by imposing a “courthouse access ban.” Amended
Complaint, Doc. 11, filed January 20, 2026. 	The Amended Complaint does not describe the
allegedly false information provided by unidentified APD Officers, when they provided the
information or what specific rights Plaintiff believes the APD Officers violated. 	The Amended
Complaint does not describe the process Plaintiff was due and the process Plaintiff was afforded,
and does not identify which Defendants allegedly deprived Plaintiff of due process by not
providing him notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the allegations. 	See Denver
Homeless Out Loud v. Denver, Colorado, 32 F.4th 1259, 1276 (10th Cir. 2022) ("This court asks
two questions when considering a procedural-due-process claim: (1) Did the plaintiff possess a
protected property or liberty interest to which due process protections apply? And if so, (2) was
the plaintiff afforded an appropriate level of process?”); Onyx Properties LL v. B. of County
Comm'rs of Elbert County, 838 F.3d 1039, 1043 (10th Cir. 2016) (“The essence of procedural due
process is the provision to the affected party of some kind of notice and ... some kind of hearing”).
Nor does the Amended Complaint identify which Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by
imposing a courthouse access ban.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim because the
Amended Complaint does not explain what each Defendant did to Plaintiff, when they did it and
Case 1:26-cv-00069-WJ-JFR Document 15 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
what specific right Plaintiff believes each Defendant violated. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state
a claim”) (emphasis added). 	Because it is dismissing this case, the Court denies the pending
motions as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) 	The following motions are DENIED as moot:
(a) 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Suppress, 	Dismiss, 	and 	Vacate, 	Doc. 	4, 	filed
January 14, 2026;
(b) 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify or, in the alternative, Vacate Administrative
Order and Request for Hearing, Doc. 5, filed January 14, 2026; and
(c) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 10, filed January 20,
2026.
/s/______________________________________
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00069-WJ-JFR Document 15 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 3