Andersen v. Preston et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BARBARA ANDERSEN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01309-SMD-JMR
DOUGLAS PRESTON and
UNKNOWN CORPORATE DEFENDANT,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises from Plaintiff allegedly solving the Forrest Fenn “puzzle poem” and
discovering the location where Forrest Fenn hid a treasure which would belong to the first person
to solve the puzzle poem. See Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Doc. 1,
filed 	December29, 	2025 	(“Complaint”). 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	Defendant 	Preston 	is 	the 	“real
author/ghostwriter of the poem,” “Fenn designated Preston as [Plaintiff’s] fiduciary under the
Unknown Corporate Defendant,” and “Fenn left [Plaintiff] gifts, including but not limited to, the
real chest through the Unknown Corporate Defendant as part of a forthcoming real, movie ending,
before his 2020 death.” 	Complaint at 1, 8. Plaintiff asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and
conversion arising from Preston “improperly withholding Andersen’s gifts and assets, as well as
the real chest for 5.5 years.” Complaint at 12. Plaintiff does not assert any federal law claims.
Plaintiff asserts the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. See Complaint at 7.
United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer M. Rozzoni notified Plaintiff that the Complaint
does not allege sufficient facts supporting diversity jurisdiction and that it appears that Plaintiff’s
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion may be barred by the four-year statute of
Case 1:25-cv-01309-SMD-JMR Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 3

2
limitations. See Order at 2-6, Doc. 4, filed January 5, 2026. Judge Rozzoni ordered Plaintiff to
show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case and to file an amended complaint. 	See
Order at 6 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely show cause and file an amended complaint may
result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not show cause or file an amended complaint by the
January 26, 2026, deadline.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis using a Short Form Application.
See Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form),
Doc. 2, filed December 29, 2025. 	Judge Rozzoni notified Plaintiff the Short Form Application
does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether a plaintiff is unable to
pay the required fees and ordered Plaintiff to file an Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form). See Order at 1, 6 (notifying Plaintiff that failure
to timely file a Long Form Application may result in denial of the motion to proceed
in forma pauperis). 	Plaintiff did not file a Long Form Application by the January 26, 2026,
deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because the Complaint does not allege
sufficient facts supporting diversity jurisdiction and Plaintiff has not complied with Judge
Rozzoni’s Order to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case, to file an amended
complaint 	and 	to 	file 	a 	Long 	Form Application 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis. 	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.”)
Case 1:25-cv-01309-SMD-JMR Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
(quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). Because it is dismissing this
case and based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Judge Rozzoni’s Order to file a Long Form
Application, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Short Form Application to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Short Form), Doc. 2, filed December 29, 2025, is DENIED.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01309-SMD-JMR Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 3