Hernandez v. Ortiz et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHRISTOPHER LEMAR HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:26-cv-00499-KG-JFR
ALICIA ORTIZ and
VINCE CRESPIN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff alleged that his “truck and work tools were nonconsensually towed from
private property” and that his “vehicle [is] currently held by ABQ 24-Hour Towing LLC.” Civil
Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at 8, Doc. 1, filed February 19, 2026 (“Complaint”);
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction at1, Doc. 4, filed
February 19, 2026. Defendants are employees of the Transportation Regulation Bureau, New
Mexico Department of Transportation. Plaintiff alleged: (i) the “tow authorization documentation
was facially non-compliant with NMAC 18.3.12.14;” (ii) Plaintiff provided Defendants with
documentation demonstrating the alleged violations and met with Defendants who reviewed the
regulation and complaint; and (iii) Defendants “refused to perform mandatory enforcement duties
required by New Mexico Administrative Code 18.3.12.14, thereby allowing the unlawful seizure
and continued deprivation of Plaintiff’s vehicle and work tools.” Complaint at 7-8. The regulation
cited by Plaintiff sets forth the authorization and procedure for moving motor vehicles by a towing
service; the regulation does not set forth mandatory enforcement requirements. See N.M.A.C.
§ 18.3.12.14. Plaintiff asserted claims for unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff’s property and for denial
of procedural due process. See Complaint at 9.
Case 1:26-cv-00499-KG-JFR Document 8 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 2

2
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar notified Plaintiff that the Complaint failed
to state claims for unreasonable seizure and denial of due process because there are no allegations
showing that (i) Defendants seized Plaintiff’s property; (ii) Defendants deprived Plaintiff of property
without providing the appropriate level of process or engaging in fair procedures; and (iii) the
unspecified enforcement duties are mandatory or that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of a federally
protected right in declining to initiate enforcement of a state law. See Order to Show Cause at 3, Doc.
6, filed February 23, 2026. Judge Robbenhaar ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should
not dismiss this case for failure to state a claim and to file an amended complaint. See Order to Show
Cause at 6 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely show cause and file an amended complaint may
result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not show cause or file an amended complaint by the
March 16, 2026, deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with Judge
Robbenhaar’s Order to show cause and 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/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 1:26-cv-00499-KG-JFR Document 8 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 2