Dailey v. City of Albuquerque et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MICHAEL DAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01133-WJ-JFR
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
BARCELONA SUITES,
ANNA MARIE CHAVEZ,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis using an Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form)” (“Short Form Application”). See
Doc. 3, filed November 12, 2025. 	United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar notified
Plaintiff that the Short Form Application does not provide sufficient information for the Court to
determine whether a plaintiff is unable to pay the required fees because where the Short Form
Application directs applicants to state the amount of income they received, Plaintiff wrote: “Self
employment, cannott record compromised idenity and campaighn of retaliation affects future. By
online/internet/w/a harassment.” [sic] Short Form Application at 1. Judge Robbenhaar ordered
Plaintiff to file a complete Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (Long Form)” (“Long Form Application”) and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file a
Long Form Application may result in denial of Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
See Order at 1-2, 6. 	Plaintiff did not file a Long Form Application by the December 8, 2025,
deadline.
Plaintiff asserted employment discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) using the form
Case 1:25-cv-01133-WJ-JFR Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 3

2
“Complaint for Employment Discrimination” with 60 pages of EEOC forms, emails and other
documents attached. 	See Doc. 1, filed November 12, 2025 (“Complaint”). Judge Robbenhaar
identified the elements necessary to state claims for employment discrimination and retaliation
and pursuant to the ADA, notified Plaintiff that the Complaint fails to state a claim because it does
not give Defendants fair notice of the grounds upon which Plaintiffs are basing their claims, and
explained that Plaintiff must describe what each Defendant did to him and what specific legal right
Plaintiff believes each Defendant violated. See Order at 2-6. Judge Robbenhaar ordered Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint
may result in dismissal of this case. See Order at 6. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint
by the December 8, 2025, deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not paid the fee for
instituting this case, has not complied with Judge Robbenhaar’s Order to file a Long Form
Application, and has not complied with Judge Robbenhaar’s Order to file an amended complaint.
See 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:
(i) 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Short Form), Doc. 3, filed November 12, 2025, is DENIED.
(ii) 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Case 1:25-cv-01133-WJ-JFR Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 3

3
/s/
_________________________________________
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01133-WJ-JFR Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 3