Robertson v. Robertson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BELINDA ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:25-cv-00874-MIS-JHR
CALE ROBERTSON,
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises in part from the conduct of Defendant, who is Plaintiff’s husband, in a
divorce and custody case in state court. See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
at 2, ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”). On September 8, 2025, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed
a Complaint alleging that Defendant lied under oath and “took pictures to [a minor child] and
soliciting [sic] services of prostitution in a web.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserted claims for “negligence,
child exploitation, corruption, laundering money, lied under oath during a trial of merits on Sep
16-17-18-2025.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (i) an investigation of Defendant
and “people in complicity in” the case; (ii) a change of venue; (iii) “I want my kids back;” and (iv)
“access to my property.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ECF No. 1. Where the form asks “was this defendant acting under color of
state law,” Plaintiff answered “No.” Id. at 1. Consequently, the Complaint failed to state a claim
pursuant to Section 1983. See Schaffer v. Salt Lake City Corp., 814 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir.
2016) (“The two elements of a Section 1983 claim are (1) deprivation of a federally protected right
by (2) an actor acting under color of state law”).
Case 2:25-cv-00874-MIS-JHR Document 6 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 4

2
On November 5, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter issued an Order
notifying Plaintiff:
The Complaint fails to state claims for crimes of child exploitation, corruption and
money laundering because “criminal statutes do not provide for private civil causes
of action.” Kelly v. Rockefeller, 69 Fed.Appx.414, 415-416 (10th Cir. 2003); see
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986) (“a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”).
It appears the Court should dismiss this case because the Complaint does not show
there are any viable claims arising under the Constitution or laws of the United
States. The Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claim rests upon the
statute providing for supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“the
district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part
of the same case”). However, “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Barnett v. Hall,
Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir.
2020) (“The Supreme Court has encouraged the practice of dismissing state claims
or remanding them to state court when the federal claims to which they are
supplemental have dropped out before trial”).
Order to Show Cause at 3, ECF No. 4. Judge Ritter ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court
should not dismiss this case for the reasons stated above and to file an amended complaint and
stated: “The complaint must identify the statutory or constitutional provision under which [each]
claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show that the case is one arising under federal law.” Id.
at 3-4 (quoting Davison v. Grant Thornton LLP, 582 F. App’x 773, 775 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Martinez v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 802 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1986)).
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims for
violation of rights and conspiracy to cause violation of rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1985, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241, and the following state-law claims: (i) malicious abuse of
process; (ii) intentional spoliation of evidence; (iii) defamation; (iv) violation of the New Mexico
Case 2:25-cv-00874-MIS-JHR Document 6 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Civil Rights Act; and (v) violation of the New Mexico Family Domestic Violence Act. See Am.
Compl., ECF No. 5.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Sections 1983 and 1985 for failure to
state a claim. See id. at 11-12. The allegations indicate Defendant is a private actor, not an official
acting under color of state law. Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation that Defendant conspired
with attorneys and the judge presiding over her state-court case but does not allege specific facts
showing that Defendant and others agreed on a common unconstitutional goal and acted in concert
to advance that goal. See Bledsoe v. Carreno, 53 F.4th 589, 609 (10th Cir. 2022) (noting that to
state a Section 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff has to allege “specific facts showing an agreement
[upon a common, unconstitutional goal], and concerted action [taken to advance that goal”] among
defendants”); Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[c]onclusory
allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to state a valid § 1983 claim”).
The Court also dismisses Plaintiff claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241, conspiracy against
rights, because Section 241 is a criminal statute and “criminal statutes do not provide for private
civil causes of action.” Kelly, 69 F. App’x at 415-416; see Am. Compl. at 12 (asserting claim
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241).
The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses this case. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”);
Barnett, 956 F.3d at 1238 (“The Supreme Court has encouraged the practice of dismissing state
claims or remanding them to state court when the federal claims to which they are supplemental
have dropped out before trial”).
Case 2:25-cv-00874-MIS-JHR Document 6 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00874-MIS-JHR Document 6 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 4