Irmiger v. Albertsons Companies, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ERIK IRMIGER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-00459-LF
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendant.
NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, filed
February 17, 2026. The Court notifies Plaintiff of the following regarding case management.
Generally, pro se litigants are held to 	the same standards of 	professional
responsibility as trained attorneys. It is a pro se litigant’s responsibility to become
familiar with and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (the “Local
Rules”).
Guide for Pro Se Litigants at 4, United States District Court, District of New Mexico (October
2022). The Local Rules, the Guide for Pro Se Litigants and a link to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available on the Court’s website: http://www.nmd.uscourts.gov.
Plaintiff has an obligation to prosecute his case. 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)).
Case 1:26-cv-00459-MLG-LF Document 4 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff also has an obligation to serve Defendant. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“The
plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by
Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service”).
Finally, the Court reminds Plaintiff of his obligations pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se
status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.”). Rule 11(b) provides:
Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written
motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating
it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's
knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law
or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law
or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 may subject Plaintiff to
sanctions, including monetary penalties and nonmonetary directives. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00459-MLG-LF Document 4 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 2