Robertson v. Johnson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BELINDA ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM
JEROME JOHNSON and
THE FORENSIC FIRM,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This case arises from proceedings in a divorce and domestic violence case in state court.
See Dismissal Order at 1-4, Doc. 15, filed May 11, 2026 (summarizing the procedural background).
Defendant Jerome Johnson is a court-appointed expert witness in the state-court case and
apparently is the owner of Defendant The Forensic Firm. 	See Dismissal Order at 1; Notice of
Appeal and Response [to] Order to Show Cause at 7, Doc. 19, filed May 15, 2026 (stating “Jerome
Johnson Owner ‘The Forensic Firm’ Signed Owner Jerome Johnson”). 	The Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s federal law claims for failure to state a claim, declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, dismissed this case without prejudice and ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose filing restrictions on Plaintiff. 	See
Dismissal Order at 4, 9, 12.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and now seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See
Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepayment of Costs or Fees, Doc. 20, filed
May 15, 2026 (“Motion”).
“In order to succeed on [a motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of
costs or fees], an appellant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised
on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). “The Supreme Court
has held that good faith is to be judged by an objective standard, for review of any issue ‘not
frivolous.’” Spearman v. Collins, 500 Fed.Appx. 742, 743 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). “An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious, or
the appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Id.; see also Thompson v. Gibson,
289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002) (“an appeal is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either
law or fact”).
Plaintiff has shown a financial inability to pay the required filing fees but has not set forth
a nonfrivolous argument of error regarding the Court’s dismissal of this case and remand of the
state-court case. 	While much of the Notice of Appeal describes the proceedings in state court,
Plaintiff appears to set forth two arguments in her Notice of Appeal. See also Motion at 2 (Where
the Tenth Circuit form “Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepayment of Costs or
Fees” prompts appellants to state their issues on appeal, Plaintiff states Defendant Jerome Johnson
laundered money, asks that the Court subpoena Defendant Johnson “and people that participated
in” a state court case, and states her husband has her money). Neither argument has an arguable
basis in law.
First, regarding the Court’s statement that Plaintiff did not clearly explain which rights
Plaintiff believes the Defendant violated or explain how Defendant violated those rights, Plaintiff
appears to argue that she was deprived of due process because she was not represented by an
attorney “in the State Court and This case.” 	Notice of Appeal at 5; see Dismissal Order at 2
(quoting United States Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez’ Order to Show Cause which notified
Plaintiff that the original “Complaint contains conclusory allegations that Defendant violated
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Plaintiff’s civil rights but does not clearly explain which rights Plaintiff believes Defendant
violated or explain how Defendant violated those rights”). 	Plaintiff states she has a right to be
represented by an attorney. See Notice of Appeal at 5. Regarding the lack of representation by an
attorney in the state court case, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant Johnson had an obligation
to provide counsel for Plaintiff and, therefore, has not shown that Defendant Johnson deprived
Plaintiff of due process. See Schaffer v. Salt Lake City Corp., 814 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir. 2016)
("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"). As for representation by an attorney in this Court,
“civil litigants have no right to counsel.” Witmer v. Grady County Jail, 483 Fed.Appx. 458, 462
(10th Cir. 2012).
Second, Plaintiff objects to the Court ordering her to show cause why the Court should not
impose filing restrictions arguing that:
Plaintiff is American and Have the Equal Rights of File any Action Civil like any
Attorney in Representation Pro Se, The Number of Times like any Attorney and be
Dismissed “Equal” like any Attorney and File Again to Protect the Rights
Guaranteed by Amendment Fourteenth of The Law of the Constitution of the
United States.
Plaintiffs have the Right of File any Document “Equal” Like any American in Any
State for Her Defense in any State and Federal Court of The United States and
Territory, and the “Equal Rights” for a Trial and Jurisdiction in any State and
Federal Court, and the State Court and Federal Court.
[sic] Notice of Appeal at 9. 	The Court explained to Plaintiff that “[t]here is strong precedent
establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by
imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances,” notified Plaintiff of
the proposed filing restrictions, gave Plaintiff an opportunity to oppose the Court’s Order before it
is instituted, and provided guidelines as to what Plaintiff must do to obtain the Court’s permission
to file new actions. Dismissal Order at 10-11 (quoting Landrith v. Schmidt, 732 F.3d 1171, 1174
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
(10th Cir. 2013)). The Court has not imposed filing restrictions; Plaintiff filed her Notice of Appeal
before the May 25, 2026, deadline for responding to the Order to show cause. Plaintiff has not
cited any authority showing that the Court’s Order to show cause regarding filing restrictions is
erroneous.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff's request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be
denied because Plaintiff has not identified "the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on
the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal." DeBardeleben, 937 F.2d at 505.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without
Prepayment of Costs or Fees, Doc. 20, filed May 15, 2026, is DENIED.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00833-SMD-DLM Document 25 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 4