Valdez v. Adams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
TIMOTHY ADAM VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:26-cv-00790-MIS-SCY
HEIDI ADAMS,
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Criminal Complaint & Report of Official Misconduct
by 10th Judicial Deputy District Attorney Heidi Adams” (“Complaint”) alleging “Cross
Jurisdictional Fraud on the Court, Tampering with Public Records, and Violation of Constitutional
Due Process.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, who has been sentenced to probation, alleges that Defendant,
a state district attorney, deprived him of “liberty through the use of fraudulent legal documents”
by “issu[ing] false warrants” and has violated New Mexico Rules regarding special responsibilities
of a prosecutor and candor toward the tribunal. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff requests “a criminal
investigation into the Conduct of [Defendant] Heidi Adams, District Attorney for the Tenth Judicial
District.” Id. at 1.
On March 24, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough issued an Order
identifying some deficiencies in the original Complaint and ordering Plaintiff to either show cause
why the Court should not dismiss this case or file an amended complaint. See Order to Show
Cause at 4, 6, ECF No. 3 (notifying Plaintiff of apparent lack of jurisdiction because the Complaint
does not identify the federal statutory or constitutional provision under which Plaintiff’s claim
arises, claims may be barred by prosecutorial immunity, Complaint fails to state a claim for a
criminal investigation into Defendant’s conduct).
Case 1:26-cv-00790-MIS-SCY Document 7 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On April 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Filing: Amended Civil Rights Complaint and
Summary of Claims” which the Clerk’s Office docketed as an Amended Complaint. See ECF No.
4. The Notice of Filing appears to be a transmittal letter which provides summaries of the federal
statutes, constitutional amendments, and state and local rules allegedly violated and states
Plaintiff’s Amended Verified Civil Rights Complaint and other documents are enclosed. See id. at
1-2. The Amended Verified Civil Rights Complaint and the other documents were not included
with the Notice of Filing.
On April 9, 2026, Judge Yarbrough ordered Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint within
21 days and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in
dismissal of this case. See ECF No. 6 at 3. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the
April 30, 2026, deadline.
The Court concludes it does not have jurisdiction over this case because the Complaint
does not contain, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint containing, allegations to support
federal question jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Since
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists absent an
adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”).
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and because
Plaintiff has not complied with Judge Yarbrough’s Order to file an amended complaint. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213,
1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because
the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a
disposition on the merits of the underlying claims.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
Case 1:26-cv-00790-MIS-SCY Document 7 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
(“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may
move to dismiss the action”); Gustafson v. Luke, 696 F. App’x 352, 354 (10th Cir. 2017)
(“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the
Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure
to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders.”) (quoting Olsen v.
Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00790-MIS-SCY Document 7 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3 of 3