Evans Sr. v. State of New Mexico et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
INSLEY EVANS, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01016-JCH-JHR
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
CONSUELO ULIBARRI and
DAVID COOK,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, filed
his Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 	Doc. 1,
filed October 15, 2025 (“Complaint”). Where the form Complaint prompts plaintiffs to provide
facts supporting their claims, Plaintiff wrote “See Attached Exhibits.” 	There are no exhibits
attached to the Complaint.
United States Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter notified Plaintiff that: (i) the Complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because there are no factual allegations describing
what each Defendant did to Plaintiff; and (ii) it does not appear that the Court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claims against the State of New Mexico based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity. See Order to Show Cause at 3, Doc. 6, filed October 16, 2025. Judge Ritter ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case and to file an amended complaint
and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely show cause and file an amended complaint may result
in dismissal of this case. 	See Order to Show Cause at 7. 	Plaintiff did not show cause, file an
Case 1:25-cv-01016-JCH-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 2

2
amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Order to Show Cause by the November 6, 2025,
deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because the Complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and because Plaintiff failed to comply with Judge Ritter’s Order
to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case and to file an amended complaint. 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“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 Fed.Appx. 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.
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01016-JCH-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 2