Zamojda v. Casa Milagro et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAMIAN ZAMOJDA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-00031-KWR-SCY
CASA MILAGRO and
ANJI ESTRELLAS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff, who is disabled, sought a temporary restraining order against Defendant
Casa Milagro, “a HUD-subsidized supportive housing provider,” and its Director, Defendant
Estrellas, alleging that they failed to comply with a state-court order to return Plaintiff’s medical,
financial, and programmatic records to Plaintiff. 	See Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preservation of Evidence at 2, Doc. 1, filed January 8, 2026 (“Motion”).
Plaintiff stated the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Motion at 2.
The Court denied the Motion for a temporary restraining order and liberally construed
Plaintiff’s Motion as a complaint. See Order at 1, 4, 6-7. The Court notified Plaintiff that he had
not alleged sufficient facts showing that his claims arise from the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. 	See Order at 2 (“To establish
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ‘[t]he complaint must identify the statutory or
constitutional provision under which the claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show that the
case is one arising under federal law’”) (quoting Davison v. Grant Thornton LLP, 582 Fed.Appx.
Case 1:26-cv-00031-KWR-SCY Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
773, 775 (10th Cir. 2014)). The Court 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 January 30, 2026, deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with
the Court’s Order to timely 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 this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
_____/S/ Kea W. Riggs________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00031-KWR-SCY Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2