Robertson v. Johnson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BELINDA ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM
JEROME JOHNSON and
THE FORENSIC FIRM,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL,
ORDER OF REMAND,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Amedment Show Cause
Under 28. U.S.C NMSA and Other Violation Rights Under 42.U.S.C S 1983 for Defendant Jerome
Johnson and the Forensic Firm, [sic] Doc. 9, filed April 3, 2026 (“Amended Complaint”),
Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal, Doc. 3, filed March 19, 2026, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of
Judge, Doc. 12, filed April 20, 2026.
Order of Dismissal
Plaintiff filed her Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 	Complaint, Doc. 1, filed March 19, 2026. 	Defendant Jerome Johnson is a
court-appointed expert witness in a state-court divorce and domestic violence case. See Complaint
at 1-4 (stating “Jerome Johnson . . . is employed as Expert 11-706,” “Jerome Johnson Expert 11-
706,” “Third Judicial District Court Requested Expert 11-706” and referencing “Case No. D-307-
DM-202100100”); N.M.R.A. § 11-706 Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses. 	Plaintiff asserted
claims for violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 1 of 12

2
and pursuant to state law and seeks monetary damages. See Complaint at 3, 5. Plaintiff Belinda
Robertson is also the plaintiff in another state-court case that she filed against Defendant Jerome
Johnson. See Notice of Removal at 1, addressed below.
United States Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez notified Plaintiff:
The Complaint fails to state a plausible claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "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." 	Schaffer v. Salt Lake City
Corp., 814 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir. 2016). The Complaint contains conclusory
allegations that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s civil rights but does not clearly
explain 	which 	rights 	Plaintiff 	believes 	Defendant 	violated 	or 	explain 	how
Defendant violated those rights. See Complaint at 2-3; Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each
defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action
harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant
violated.”). Plaintiff attached 54 pages of documents to her Complaint. The Court
will not review attached documents to determine whether Plaintiff can state a
plausible claim. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840
(10th Cir. 2005) (“the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the
litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record”).
Furthermore, it appears that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, a court-appointed
expert, are barred by judicial immunity. 	“[S]tate court judges are absolutely
immune from monetary damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity,
unless the actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Sawyer v.
Gorman, 317 Fed.Appx. 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)). 	“[I]mmunity which derives from judicial immunity may
extend to persons other than a judge where performance of judicial acts or activity
as an official aid of the judge is involved. Absolute judicial immunity has thus been
extended to non-judicial officers, like clerks of court, where their duties had an
integral relationship with the judicial process.” Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 Fed.Appx.
725, 728 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Whitesel v. Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 867
(10th Cir. 2000).
Order to Show Cause at 2-3, Doc. 6, filed March 23, 2026. Judge Martinez ordered Plaintiff to
show cause why the Court should not dismiss her claims and to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that asserts two claims pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and claims for malicious abuse of process, defamation and for deprivation of rights pursuant to the
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 2 of 12

3
New Mexico Constitution. See Amended Complaint at 3, 7-14 (adding The Forensic Firm, a court-
appointed expert, as a defendant). The first Section 1983 claim, “Conspiracy to Cause malicious
Deprivation of Civil Rights,” alleges “Defendant Jerome Johnson and The Forensic Firm . . .
conspired to procure a Groundless indictment against Plaintiff Belinda Robertson and to Malicious
bring about or advance Belinda’s Trial and Conviction, thus Violating Belinda’s Constitutional
Rights by the Improper use of the Law of the State of New Mexico.” [sic] Amended Complaint
at 7. The second Section 1983 claim, “Suppression of Evidence and Deprivation of Civil Rights,”
alleges 	“Defendant 	Jerome 	Johnson 	and 	The 	Forensic 	Firm 	. . . 	violated 	Plaintiff 	[sic]
Constitutional Rights by Intentionally causing and/or agreeing to cause exculpatory evidence not
to be inventoried in Complicity of People Involved in case of Violence Domestic and Divorce from
a District Court in conspiracy with Experts appointed for a District Court and Complicity of
Husband of Plaintiff Cale Robertson.” 	[sic] Amended Complaint at 9. 	Plaintiff makes vague
allegations that Defendants Johnson and The Forensic Firm acted “in conspiracy” and “in” or
“with” “complicity” with other persons related to the state-court case. See Amended Complaint
at 1-9.
The Amended Complaint fails to state claims pursuant to Section 1983. While “allegations
of a conspiracy may form the basis of a § 1983 claim, we have also held a plaintiff must allege
specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action amongst the defendants because
conclusory allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to state a valid § 1983 claim.” 	Brooks v.
Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts showing
that Defendants Johnson and The Forensic Firm and state officials agreed to deprive Plaintiff of
her constitutional rights and acted in concert to advance that goal. 	See Bledsoe v. Carreno,
53 F.4th 589, 609 (10th Cir. 2022) (To state a Section 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff has to
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 3 of 12

4
allege “specific facts showing an agreement [upon a common, unconstitutional goal], and
concerted action [taken to advance that goal”] among defendants”).
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure
to state a claim.1 The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses the Amended Complaint.
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 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 of Remand
Plaintiff filed a Notice removing Case No. “D-307-CV-2025-03244” from the Third
Judicial District Court, Dona Ana County, State of New Mexico. The Notice of Removal and state-
court records indicate that Plaintiff in this case, Belinda Roberts, is the plaintiff in the state case.
See Notice of Removal at 1, 3; New Mexico Courts Case Lookup, 2 Belinda Robertson v. Jerome
Johnson, No. D-307-CV-2025-03244, Third Judicial District Court, County of Dona Ana, State of
New Mexico.
Judge Martinez notified Plaintiff:
The removal statute provides that a defendant may remove a case to federal court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“any civil action brought in a State court ... may be
removed by the defendant or the defendants”).
1 Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which states: “the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .the action . . .fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2 https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app (last visited March 20, 2026).
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 4 of 12

5
[P]laintiffs are not entitled to remove cases to federal court. See
Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643 (2d Cir. 1993)
(per curiam) (“No section [of the United States Code] provides for
removal by a plaintiff.”); see also 14C Charles Alan Wright, et al.,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3730 (Rev. 4th. ed. 2018) (stating
that “plaintiffs cannot remove” cases to federal court).
Robinson v. New Mexico, Order and Judgment at 2, No. 18-2179 (10th Cir. June 28,
2019); Conner v. Salzinger, 457 F.2d 1241, 1243 (3d Cir. 1972) (“It is settled that
the cited removal statutes confine the right of removal from a state court to a federal
district court to a defendant or defendants”) (emphasis in original).
Order to Show Cause at 4-5. Judge Martinez ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court
should not remand Robertson v. Johnson, No. D-307-CV-2025-03244, to the Third Judicial District
Court, County of Dona Ana, State of New Mexico.
In addition to her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Transmittal of State Court
Documents. 	See Doc. 8, filed March 24, 2026. 	Neither the Amended Complaint nor the
Transmittal of State Court Documents show that Plaintiff, who is the plaintiff in the state-court
case, may remove the state-court case to this Court. The Court, therefore, remands Robertson v.
Johnson, No. D-307-CV-2025-03244, to the Third Judicial District Court, County of Dona Ana,
State of New Mexico.
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot
Judge Martinez notified Plaintiff:
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which
provides that the “officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and
perform all duties in [proceedings in forma pauperis]”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The
Court will not order service at this time because the Court is ordering Plaintiff to
show cause and file an amended complaint. The Court will address service after
this Order to Show Cause is resolved.
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 5 of 12

6
Order to Show Cause at 4. 	Despite Judge Martinez’ notice that the Court will address service,
Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Jerome Johnson. 	See Summons Returned Executed,
Doc. 11, filed April 16, 2026.
Defendant Jerome Johnson moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against him for
insufficient service of process. See Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process and for
Additional Time to Respond to Pending Motion, Doc. 13, filed May 5, 2026 (also requesting an
extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Change of Judge).
The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and because it is denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Judge as discussed below, denies Defendant Johnson’s Motion to
Dismiss as moot. 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 on which relief may be granted”)
(emphasis added).
Order Denying Motion for Change of Judge
Plaintiff, in the title of her Motion for Change of Judge, requests a:
change of Judge assigned Sarah M. Davenport to Judge of Magistrate Gregory B.
Wormuth for be in case for a good period of time to continue case based in evidence
of violation and deprivation of civil rights and other rights in Amedment Fourteenth
of the law of the Constitution of the United States and the New Mexico Civil Rights
Act (NMRA) for Defendant Jerome Johnson and the Forensic Firm.
[sic] Motion for Change of Judge at 1. The Motion for Change of Judge describes proceedings in
state court and states Plaintiff’s reasons for requesting that the state proceedings be transferred to
this Court but does not state any reasons why the undersigned should recuse from this case.
The statute governing disqualification of a judge provides:
(a) 	Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 6 of 12

7
(b) 	He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) 	Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding;
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1). Judges not only have a strong duty to recuse when appropriate, but
also a strong duty to sit, and the statute “must not be so broadly construed that it becomes, in effect,
presumptive, so that recusal is mandated upon the merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal
bias or prejudice.” United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241, 1251 (10th Cir. 2017).
[F]ederal law instructs that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “This
[recusal] requirement is intended ‘to promote confidence in the judiciary by
avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.’” United States v.
Wells, 873 F.3d 1241, 1251 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Mathis v. Huff & Puff
Trucking, Inc., 787 F.3d 1297, 1310 (10th Cir. 2015)). “The standard is purely
objective. The inquiry is limited to outward manifestations and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom.” United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.
1993); see id. (“In applying § 455(a), the judge's actual state of mind, purity of
heart, incorruptibility, or lack of partiality are not the issue.”); see also Charles
Gardner Geyh & Kris Markarian, Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal
Law, § II.B.1.A, at 20 (3d ed. 2020) (“Section 455(a) makes clear that judges should
apply an objective standard in determining whether to disqualify.”). “In other
words, a judge's subjective state of mind is irrelevant; what matters is whether ‘the
public might reasonably believe that [the judge] knew’ of ‘facts creating an
appearance of impropriety.’” Wells, 873 F.3d at 1251 (alteration in original)
(emphasis added) (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.
847, 860, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988)).
“In applying the [objective] test, the initial inquiry is whether a reasonable factual
basis exists for calling the judge's impartiality into question.”
. . . .
“In conducting this review, we must ask how these facts would appear to a well-
informed, thoughtful and objective observer,” who is “an average member of the
public,” not a “hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person.” Mathis, 787 F.3d at
1310 (emphasis added) (quoting Sensley v. Albritton, 385 F.3d 591, 599 (5th Cir.
2004)). And courts must take into account that “cases within § 455(a) are extremely
fact driven ‘and must be judged on [their] unique facts and circumstances more than
by comparison to situations considered in prior jurisprudence.’” Nichols, 71 F.3d at
351 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th
Cir. 1995)); accord Wells, 873 F.3d at 1251.
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 7 of 12

8
United States v. Martinez, 92 F.4th 1213, 1255-56 (10th Cir. 2024) (emphasis in original).
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Judge because Plaintiff has not set forth
any factual grounds that would cause a reasonable, objective person, knowing all the relevant facts,
to question the undersigned’s impartiality.
Order to Show Cause
Plaintiff has filed the following cases in this Court:
(i) 	Robertson 	v. 	Robertson, 	No. 	2:24-cv-00173-DHU-GBW 	(dismissed 	because
amended complaint failed to state a claim; Plaintiff failed to comply with
Magistrate Judge’s order to explain what each defendant did to Plaintiff).
(ii) 	Robertson v. Robertson, No. 2:24-cv-00312-MLG-JHR (dismissed for failure to
comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause and for failure to state claim; Plaintiff
failed to comply with Magistrate Judge’s order to explain what each defendant did
to Plaintiff; Plaintiff filed 12 motions to remove case from state court; Plaintiff
failed to comply with Court order to become familiar with and to comply with the
Court’s Local Rules by filing approximately 600-700 pages of exhibits without
complying with the Local Rule requiring agreement of parties or leave of Court to
exceed 50 pages; Plaintiff filed five post-judgment motions without moving to
reopen the case pursuant to Rules 59 or 60).
(iii) 	Robertson v. New Mexico, No. 2:25-cv-00077-WJ-KRS (dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause
why the Court should not dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and to file an
amended complaint).
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 8 of 12

9
(iv) 	Robertson v. Robertson, No. 2:25-cv-00874-MIS-JHR (dismissed for failure to
state claims pursuant to federal law, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims).
(v) 	Robertson v. Markowski-Ruvalcaba Law Firm, No. 2:25-cv-01043-SMD-KRS
(dismissed for failure to state claims pursuant to federal law, declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims).
(vi) 	Robertson v. New Mexico, No. 2:25-cv-01044-DHU-GBW (dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction and as barred by judicial immunity).
(vii) 	Robertson v. Caplan, No. 2:26-cv-00337-DHU-GBW (removed from state court by
defendant; pending).
(viii) 	Robertson v. Robertson, No. 2:26-cv-00676-KG-KRS (dismissed for failure to state
claims pursuant to federal law, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
state law claims, remanding improperly removed case to state court).
(ix) 	Robertson v. Johnson, No. 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM (this case).
(x) 	Robertson v. Robertson, No. 2:26-cv-00888-MIS-GBW (dismissed for failure to
state claims pursuant to federal law, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims, remanding improperly removed case to state court).
Plaintiff has repeatedly filed complaints that failed to state a claim and improperly removed cases
from state court. The Court finds that filing restrictions are appropriate so that the Court does not
expend valuable resources addressing future such filings and orders Plaintiff to show cause why
the Court should not impose filing restrictions.
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 9 of 12

10
Court’s Power to Impose Filing Restrictions
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has discussed the Court’s power
to impose filing restrictions and the procedure for imposing filing restrictions:
“[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional and there
is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is
frivolous or malicious.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (per
curiam) (citation omitted). “There is strong precedent establishing the inherent
power of federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing
carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.” Cotner v.
Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986). “Even onerous conditions may be
imposed upon a litigant as long as they are designed to assist the ... court in curbing
the 	particular 	abusive 	behavior 	involved,” 	except 	that 	they 	“cannot 	be 	so
burdensome ... as to deny a litigant meaningful access to the courts.” Id. (brackets
and internal quotation marks omitted). “Litigiousness alone will not support an
injunction restricting filing activities. However, injunctions are proper where the
litigant's abusive and lengthy history is properly set forth.” Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353
(citations omitted). “[T]here must be some guidelines as to what [a party] must do
to obtain the court's permission to file an action.” Id. at 354. “In addition, [the party]
is entitled to notice and an opportunity to oppose the court's order before it is
instituted.” Id. A hearing is not required; a written opportunity to respond is
sufficient. See id.
Landrith v. Schmidt, 732 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2013).
Proposed Filing Restrictions
The Court proposes to impose the following filing restrictions on Plaintiff:
Plaintiff will be enjoined from making further filings in this case except objections to this
order, a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis; and the
Clerk will be directed to not file any additional submissions by Plaintiff in this case other than
objections to this order, a notice of appeal, or a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis, unless a licensed attorney who is admitted to practice before this Court and has appeared
in this action signs the proposed filing.
Plaintiff also will be enjoined from initiating future litigation in this Court and the Clerk
will be directed to not file any initial pleading that Plaintiff submits, unless either a licensed
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 10 of 12

11
attorney who is admitted to practice before this Court signs the pleading or Plaintiff first obtains
permission to proceed pro se. See DePineda v. Hemphill, 34 F.3d 946, 948-49 (10th Cir. 1994).
To obtain permission to proceed pro se in this Court, Plaintiff must take the following steps:
1. File with the Clerk of Court a petition requesting leave to file a pro se initial pleading, a
notarized affidavit, the proposed initial pleading, and a copy of these filing restrictions;
2. The affidavit must be notarized, be in proper legal form and recite the claims that Plaintiff
seeks to present, including a short discussion of the legal bases for the claims, and the basis of the
Court’s jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties. The affidavit must certify that, to the best of
Plaintiff’s knowledge, Plaintiff's claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith; that they are
warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law; that the new suit is not initiated for any improper purpose such as delay or needless
increase in the cost of litigation; and that Plaintiff will comply with all Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the District of New Mexico’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff’s claims
have previously been raised or Plaintiff has previously sued the defendants, the affidavit must
certify that the proposed new suit does not present the same claims that this or any other court has
decided and explain why the new suit would not be an abuse of the system;
3. The Clerk of the Court shall open a new civil case, file the petition, the affidavit, the
proposed pleading and the copy of these restrictions in the new civil case, and randomly assign a
Magistrate Judge to determine whether to grant Plaintiff’s petition to proceed pro se in the new
civil case. See Mem. Op. and Order, Doc. 21 at 6-9, filed in In re Billy L. Edwards, No. 15cv631
MCA/SMV (D.N.M. November 13, 2015) (adopting procedure, similar to that of the Tenth Circuit,
of opening a new case and filing the restricted filer’s petition to proceed pro se). If the Magistrate
Judge approves Plaintiff’s petition to proceed pro se, the Magistrate Judge shall enter an order
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 11 of 12

12
indicating that the matter shall proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the District of New Mexico’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. If the Magistrate Judge does
not approve Plaintiff’s petition to proceed pro se, the Magistrate Judge shall instruct the Clerk to
assign a District Judge to the new case.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Doc. 9, filed April 3, 2026, is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
(ii) 	Robertson v. Johnson, No. D-307-CV-2025-03244, is REMANDED to the Third
Judicial District Court, County of Dona Ana, State of New Mexico.
(iii) 	Defendant Jerome Johnson’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process
and for Additional Time to Respond to Pending Motion, Doc. 13, filed May 5, 2026,
is DENIED as moot.
(iv) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Judge, Doc. 12, filed April 20, 2026, is DENIED.
(v) 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(vi) 	Within fourteen (14) days from entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall show cause why
this Court should not enter the proposed filing restrictions described above.
Plaintiff’s written objections to the proposed filing restrictions shall be limited to
10 pages. 	If Plaintiff does not timely file objections to the proposed filing
restrictions, the proposed filing restrictions shall take effect fourteen (14) days from
the date of this order and will apply to any matter filed after that time. If Plaintiff
timely files objections, restrictions will take effect only upon entry of a subsequent
order.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 12 of 12