Robertson v. Markowski-Ruvalcaba Law Firm et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BELINDA ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:25-cv-01043-SMD-KRS
THEODORE MARKOWSKI and
STEPHEN EATON,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff filed her Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.” See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed
October 20, 2025 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff is a party in a state-court case. See Complaint at 3.
Defendant Markowski is a private attorney representing Plaintiff and Defendant Eaton is a
guardian ad litem appointed to represent Plaintiff. See Complaint at 3, 9. Plaintiff alleged
Defendants violated her civil rights and violated “the Code of Conduct of Attorneys.” Complaint
at 3, 7. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. See Complaint at 5.
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea notified Plaintiff:
The Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "The two
elements of a Section 1983 claim are (1) deprivation of a federally protected right
by (2) an actor acting under color of state law." Schaffer v. Salt Lake City Corp.,
814 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir. 2016). There are no allegations showing that
Defendants Markowski and Eaton were acting under color of state law. See
DiCesare v. McAnally, 657 Fed.Appx. 800, 802 (10th Cir. 2016) (“a lawyer
representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor
‘under color of state law’ within the meaning of § 1983.”) (quoting Polk Cnty. v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981)). Where the form “Civil Rights Complaint
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983” asks “was this defendant acting under color of state
law,” Plaintiff checked the “No” boxes. Complaint at 1-2. The Complaint contains
conclusory allegations that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights but does not
clearly explain which rights Plaintiff believes they violated. See Complaint at 3
Case 2:25-cv-01043-SMD-KRS Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Order to Show Cause at 3, Doc. 5, filed October 27, 2025. Judge Sweazea ordered Plaintiff to
show cause why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
to file an amended complaint. See Order to Show Cause at 3, 5.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint but did not file a separate response showing why the
Court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Amedment Order
Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Order to Show Cause, [sic] Doc. 6, filed
November 14, 2025 (“Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint contains statements
regarding Defendants’ alleged misconduct in the state-court proceedings and asserts violations of
the United States Constitution, the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, and the New Mexico Family
Violence Protection Act. See Amended Complaint at 11-12. It appears Plaintiff may be asserting
claims for “Violation of the Law of the United States in Activity Criminal” based on Defendants’
alleged “Fraud to IRS Taxes Reported” and “Laundering Money.” Amended Complaint at 12.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a
claim. There are no allegations in the Amended Complaint showing that Defendants were acting
under color of state law and Plaintiff has not filed a response showing that the Court should not
dismiss her claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims based on
Defendants’ alleged violation of federal criminal statutes for failure to state a claim. See Kelly v.
Rockefeller, 69 Fed.Appx.414, 415-416 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[C]riminal statutes do not provide for
private civil causes of action”).
The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses this case. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”);
Case 2:25-cv-01043-SMD-KRS Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir.
2020) (“The Supreme Court has encouraged the practice of dismissing state claims or remanding
them to state court when the federal claims to which they are supplemental have dropped out before
trial”).
Plaintiff has filed a Motion requesting a jury trial. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Requesting a
Trial with Jury after Defendants Will Continued Harrased and Violated the Civil Rights of Plaintiff,
[sic] Doc. 7, filed December 1, 2025. The Court denies the Motion for a jury trial because the
Court is dismissing this case.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) Plaintiff’s Motion to Requesting a Trial with Jury after Defendants Will Continued
Harrased and Violated the Civil Rights of Plaintiff, [sic] Doc. 7, filed December 1,
2025, is DENIED.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01043-SMD-KRS Document 11 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 3