Gonzalez v. Basu

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NATALIE GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-01226-DHU-KK
SHANTONU BASU,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, filed
April 20, 2026, and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (Short Form), Doc. 2, filed April 20, 2026 (“Short Form Application”).
The only allegations in the Complaint state:
1. 	Defendant engaged in ex parte communication,
2. 	Plaintiff demands $100,000.
Complaint at 1.
United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa notified Plaintiff the Complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See
Order at 2, 4, Doc. 4, filed April 21, 2026 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended
complaint may result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the
May 12, 2026, deadline.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis using a Short Form Application.
Judge Khalsa notified Plaintiff the Short Form Application does not provide sufficient information
for the Court to determine whether a plaintiff is unable to pay the required fees and ordered Plaintiff
Case 1:26-cv-01226-DHU-KK Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 1 of 2

2
to file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form).
See Order at 1, 4 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely file a Long Form Application may result
in denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis). Plaintiff did not file a Long Form
Application by the May 12, 2026, deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with
Judge Khalsa’s Order to file an amended complaint and to file a Long Form Application to proceed
in forma pauperis. 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)). Because
it is dismissing this case and based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Judge Khalsa’s Order to
file a Long Form Application, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Short Form Application to proceed
in forma pauperis.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Short Form), Doc. 2, filed April 20, 2026, is DENIED.
_________________________________
HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01226-DHU-KK Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 2