Robertson v. Robertson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BELINDA ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00676-KG-KRS
CALE ROBERTSON,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiff asserted claims for violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims pursuant to state law against her husband Defendant Cale Robertson.
See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed March 5, 2026 (“Complaint”).
Plaintiff Belinda Robertson is also the plaintiff in a state-court case that she filed against her husband
Defendant Cale Robertson. Plaintiff removed the state-court case to this Court. See Notice of
Removal, Doc. 4, filed March 5, 2026.
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea notified Plaintiff that the Complaint fails
to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because there are no allegations showing that Defendant
Cale Robertson was acting under color of state law and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
See Order to Show Cause, Doc. 6, filed March 9, 2026. Judge Sweazea also notified Plaintiff that she
improperly removed the state-court case and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should
not remand Robertson v. Robertson, No. D-307-DV-2021-00043, to the Third Judicial District Court,
County of Dona Ana, State of New Mexico. See Order to Show Cause at 6 (noting that federal
removal statutes allow a defendant, but not a plaintiff, to remove a state-court case to federal court
and Plaintiff in this case was the plaintiff in the state-court case). Plaintiff timely filed her Amended
Complaint and response to the Order to Show Cause. See Amended Complain Show Cause Regarding
Case 2:26-cv-00676-KG-KRS Document 17 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Complain and Order Show Cause why the Court should not dismiss Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 [sic], Doc. 8, filed March 24, 2026 (“Amended Complaint”).
The undersigned dismissed Plaintiff’s civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
failure to state a claim because Plaintiff did not set forth allegations showing that Defendant was
acting under color of state law, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state
law claims, dismissed the Amended Complaint, remanded Robertson v. Robertson, No. D-307-DV-
2021-00043, to the Third Judicial District Court, County of Dona Ana, State of New Mexico, and
dismissed this case without prejudice. See Order of Dismissal, Doc. 10, filed April 6, 2026.
Plaintiff now objects to and asks the Court to reconsider its Order dismissing this case and
remanding the underlying case to state court. See Amended Motion of Reconsideration and
Obje[c]tion to Reversal/Remand from Federal State [sic] to State Court Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or
Amend a Judgment, Doc. 15, filed April 14, 2026 (“Motion”). Plaintiff timely filed her Motion to
alter or amend within eight days of entry of the Final Judgment, Doc. 11, filed April 6, 2026.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment”)
No matter how styled, a motion will be deemed a Rule 59(e) motion if it is served
within the specified time period and seeks relief appropriate to Rule 59(e) by
questioning the correctness of the underlying judgment. Hannon v. Maschner, 981
F.2d 1142, 1144 n.2 (10th Cir. 1992). Rule 59(e) relief is available in limited
circumstances, including “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) [when]
new evidence previously [was] unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000).
Hayes Family Trust v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1004 (10th Cir. 2017).
Plaintiff asserts the Court erred in dismissing this case and remanding the state-court case
because:
(i) the state judicial “officers keep to maintain a case for a long period of time with claims
that only a federal judge can take jurisdiction;”
Case 2:26-cv-00676-KG-KRS Document 17 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
(ii) “Plaintiff is American and Have the Equal Rights of Any American to Be Equal with
a jurisdiction Equal with a Trial in a Federal Court in The State of New Mexico Based
in Amendment 1 of the Law of The Constitution of The United States and the Law of
the State of New Mexico;” and
(iii) The undersigned denied Plaintiff the right to a trial “with No Reason or Evidence.”
[sic] Motion at 1-2, 5 (asking the Court to “Help the State Court with a Case that have [sic] Federal
Claims”).
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration and overrules Plaintiff’s Objection
because Plaintiff has not cited any legal authority in support of her arguments that the Court
incorrectly dismissed this case and remanded the state-court case. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.3(a) (“A
motion, response or reply must cite authority in support of the legal positions advanced”). The Court
cannot search for legal authority supporting Plaintiff’s arguments. See Garrett v. Selby Connor
Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (“the court cannot take on the responsibility of
serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record”).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion of Reconsideration and Obje[c]tion to
Reversal/Remand from Federal State [sic] to State Court Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a
Judgment, Doc. 15, filed April 14, 2026, is DENIED and OVERRULED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity,
please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the
NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing)
accompanying this document. Electronically
filed documents can be found on the Court’s
PACER public access system.
Case 2:26-cv-00676-KG-KRS Document 17 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 3