Guzman et al v. LNU

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOAQUIN GUZMAN and
EMMA CORONEL,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 1:25-cv-429 MIS/LF
FNU LNU,
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended complaint as
directed. Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Their Complaint does not name
any Defendants, does not state any facts, and makes no coherent claims. See ECF No. 1. By Order
entered February 12, 2026, the Court determined the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim.
ECF No. 6 (“Screening Ruling”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (courts must sua sponte review
in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether they state a cognizable claim). The Screening
Ruling explains that, while Plaintiffs cite the Eighth Amendment and mention due process (see
ECF No. 1 at 4), they make no coherent claim or state any facts, and the Court cannot discern what
legal theory Plaintiffs wish to pursue. ECF No. 6 at 3. The Screening Ruling further notes that
Plaintiffs’ names in the case caption do not match the signature line or mailing envelope, which
instead indicate this action was filed by an attorney named “Gene Edward Scott II.” See ECF No.
1 at 5-6. The Screening Ruling explains that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that
“[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest[,]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1),
and require that all parties are named in the title of the complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
Case 1:25-cv-00429-MIS-LF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Based on these pleading defects, the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.
ECF No. 6 at 4. Consistent with Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990),
Plaintiffs were sua sponte invited to amend their claims within thirty (30) days of entry of the
Screening Ruling. The Screening Ruling set forth the general pleading standards governing 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and explained that any amendment must include Plaintiffs’ names in the title, list
all Defendants and claims, and contain a short and plain statement demonstrating the grounds for
relief, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). ECF No. 6 at 3-4. Plaintiffs were warned that failure to
timely amend in accordance with the Screening Ruling may result in dismissal of this case with or
without prejudice. Id. at 4-5.
The deadline to amend was March 16, 2026. Plaintiffs did not amend, show cause for such
failure, or otherwise respond to the Screening Ruling. The Court will therefore dismiss this case
for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 12(b)(6). The Court has
the option to dismiss with or without prejudice under those authorities. See, e.g., Novotny v. OSL
Retail Servs. Corp., No. 22-8062, 2023 WL 3914017, at *1 (10th Cir. June 9, 2023) (affirming
dismissal with prejudice where the district court rejected a “claim but gave [plaintiff] leave to
amend, cautioning that failure to allege a plausible claim would result in a dismissal”). The Court
will enter the dismissal without prejudice in this case, since no defendants have been named and,
therefore, will not be prejudiced by such ruling.
Case 1:25-cv-00429-MIS-LF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS ORDERED that this case, including Plaintiffs’ Complaint ECF No. 1, is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
and Rule 12(b)(6); and the Court will enter a separate judgment closing the civil case.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00429-MIS-LF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 3