Long et al v. LNU et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANTION M. LONG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 24-cv-477 KWR/JFR
FNU HAGGERTON, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Antion M. Long’s post-judgment filings
– Amended Complaint (Doc. 52); Motion to Proceed Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Doc. 53) (IFP
Motion); and Motion to Extend Time to File Six-Month Account (Doc. 54). 	Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se and was incarcerated when this action was initiated. 	Having considered the
record and relevant law, the Court directs the Clerk’s Office to open a new case using the Amended
Complaint (Doc. 52) as the opening pleading, and denies the pending motions (Docs. 53 and 54)
without prejudice.
In an Order entered January 17, 2025, the Court found that joinder of the lawsuits filed by
the multiple inmate-plaintiffs in this case is impractical. 	(Doc. 42). 	The Court permitted the
primary filer – Plaintiff Long – to proceed, and directed Long to file an amended complaint limited
solely to his own claims, as well as an inmate account statement to support his IFP Motion. 	Id.
Plaintiff Long did not comply, show cause for such failure, or otherwise respond to the Order by
the deadline set by the Court. 	Consequently, on March 14, 2025, the Court dismissed the case
Case 1:24-cv-00477-KWR-JFR Document 60 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3

2
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with the
Court’s orders. 	(Docs. 50 and 51) (Order of Dismissal and Final Judgment).
Thereafter, on March 24, 2025, Plaintiff Long filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 52), IFP
Motion (Doc. 53), and Motion to Extend Time to File Six-Month Account (Doc. 54). 	To the
extent Plaintiff seeks to reopen this case, the Court considers the request under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). 	See Manco v. Werholtz, 528 F.3d 760, 761 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining a motion to
reconsider filed within 28 days after entry of the final judgment is generally analyzed under Rule
59(e)); Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991) (same). 	Grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e) include: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2)
new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” 	Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff has not made any arguments to reopen the case and has not demonstrated the case
should be reopened based on new law or evidence. 	Moreover, there is no injustice because
Petitioner can refile his claims in a new case. 	The Court will therefore deny relief, to the extent
Plaintiff seeks to reopen the instant case under Rule 59. 	However, the Court will direct the Clerk’s
Office to open a new § 1983 case using the Amended Complaint (Doc. 52) as the opening pleading.
The Court will deny the pending IFP Motion (Doc. 53) and Motion to Extend Time to File Six-
Month Account (Doc. 54) without prejudice. 	Plaintiff must pursue in forma pauperis relief by
filing a separate motion in the new case. 	See Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (2016) (explaining
plaintiffs must apply for in forma pauperis relief in each separate case). 	The Court will direct the
Clerk’s Office to send Plaintiff a blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Case 1:24-cv-00477-KWR-JFR Document 60 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall open a new case using
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 52) as the opening pleading, and shall send Plaintiff a blank
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(Doc. 53) and Motion to Extend Time to File Six-Month Account (Doc. 54) shall be DENIED
without prejudice. 	Plaintiff may seek in forma pauperis relief in the new case.
____/S/__________________________
HON. KEA RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00477-KWR-JFR Document 60 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3