Bachicha v. Four Seasons Resorts Ranch Encantado

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SANTI LOUIS BACHICHA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-00701-JCH-SCY
FOUR SEASONS RESORTS RANCHO ENCANTADO,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises from alleged employment discrimination, retaliation, defamation and
spoliation of evidence. See Amended Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at 2,
Doc. 5, filed March 9, 2026 (“Amended Complaint”). 	Pro se Plaintiff, who was employed by
Defendant, alleged that during the course of his employment, he “experienced discriminatory
treatment 	and 	inappropriate 	conduct 	within 	the 	workplace,” 	and 	that 	after 	he 	“reported
inappropriate and sexually harassing comments to management, the Defendant failed to properly
investigate or address the complaint” and engaged in retaliatory actions culminating in the
termination of Plaintiff’s employment.” 	Amended Complaint at 2. 	Plaintiff also alleged that
Defendant’s assertion that “Plaintiff was terminated due to ‘excessive absenteeism’” is “pretext
designed to conceal discriminatory and retaliatory motives.” Amended Complaint at 4.
United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiff the Amended
Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim because:
Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation that he “experienced discriminatory
treatment” but does not provide factual statements describing the discrimination or
showing that the discriminatory treatment occurred under circumstances from
which one could infer the discriminatory treatment was based on Plaintiff’s gender.
See Walkingstick Dixon v. Oklahoma ex rel. Regional University System of
Oklahoma Bd. of Regents, 125 F.4th 1321, 1334 (10th Cir. 2025) (“To establish a
prima facie case of Title VII discrimination, a plaintiff who is a member of a
protected class must show that she experienced an adverse employment action
“under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination”).
Similarly, Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation that Defendant “engaged in
Case 1:26-cv-00701-JCH-SCY Document 7 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
retaliatory actions culminating in the termination of Plaintiff’s employment” but
does not include factual statements describing the retaliation or showing that the
alleged retaliation was connected to Plaintiff reporting the sexually harassing
comments. See Walkingstick, 125 F.4th at 1339 (“To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation, [a plaintiff] must show that: (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2)
she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection
between the protected activity and the adverse action.”).
Order for Second Amended Complaint at 2-4, Doc. 6, filed March 11, 2026 (describing how Courts
use the Iqbal/Twombly standard to determine whether a plaintiff has stated a plausible claim)
(quoting Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021)). Judge
Yarbrough ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint and notified Plaintiff that failure
to timely file a second amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. Plaintiff did not
file a second amended complaint by the April 1, 2026, deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because the Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because Plaintiff failed to comply with Judge
Yarbrough’s Order to file a second amended complaint. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted”); 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.
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00701-JCH-SCY Document 7 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2