Bourdon et al v. The City of Espanola et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANDY BOURDON and
LAURA PORTER,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01270-KK
CITY OF ESPANOLA,
CITY OF SANTA FE, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND ORDER FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights Complaint
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed December 19, 2025 (“Complaint”), and Plaintiffs’
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed
December 19, 2025 (“Application”).
Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), provides that the Court
may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits
an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person possesses and that the person is unable
to pay such fees.
When a district court receives an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
it 	should 	examine 	the 	papers 	and 	determine 	if 	the 	requirements 	of
[28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted. Thereafter,
if the court finds that the allegations of poverty are untrue or that the action is
frivolous or malicious, it may dismiss the case[.]
Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed.Appx. 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58,
60 (10th Cir. 1962). “The statute [allowing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis] was intended
for the benefit of those too poor to pay or give security for costs....” 	Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JFR Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344 (1948). While a litigant need not be “absolutely destitute,”
“an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security
for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id.
at 339.
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs. 	Plaintiffs signed an affidavit stating they are unable to pay the costs of these
proceedings and provided the following information: (i) their combined average monthly income
during the past 12 months is $967.00; (ii) Plaintiffs’ combined monthly expenses total $1,913.00;
(iii) Plaintiffs have $0.00 in cash; and (iv) Plaintiffs have five minor children who rely on them for
support. The Court finds that Plaintiffs are unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because they
signed an affidavit stating they are unable to pay the costs of these proceedings, because their
monthly expenses exceed their low monthly income, and because they have five minor children
who rely on them for support.
Order for Amended Complaint
The 31-page Complaint includes 22 pages of allegations and asserts 12 “counts.” Some of
the paragraphs are not numbered, others are designated with non-unique numbers, for example
there are 9 paragraphs labeled “1.” See Complaint at 10-11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27. 	Many of
the allegations are vague, for example, they refer to Defendants collectively without identifying
which of the 17 Defendants Plaintiffs are referring to and do not state when each Defendant’s
actions occurred. The Complaint also contains unnecessary statements explaining legal standards.
As a result of the deficiencies identified above, the Complaint does not give Defendants
fair notice of the grounds upon which Plaintiffs are basing their claims. See Howl v. Alvarado, 783
Fed.Appx. 815, 817-18 (10th Cir. 2019) (“Although ‘a complaint need not provide ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ it must give just enough factual detail to provide ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JFR Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 6

3
and the grounds upon which it rests.’”) (quoting Warnick v. Cooley, 895 F.3d 746, 751 (10th Cir.
2018) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, (2007)).
“[T]his court has long recognized that defendants are prejudiced by having to respond to
pleadings [that are] wordy and unwieldy,” and “judges ... have their task made immeasurably more
difficult by pleadings [that are] rambling....” United States v. Celio, 388 Fed.Appx. 758, 761 (10th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1162-63 (10th Cir.
2007)). 	“Courts have ‘obligations to pro se litigants’ to provide ‘some modest additional
explanation’ regarding the format of filings because they ‘are not expected to understand what
recitations are legally essential and which are superfluous.’” Id.
The Court orders Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and provides the following
explanations regarding the amended complaint.
The amended complaint must set forth Plaintiffs’ allegations in uniquely numbered,
double-spaced paragraphs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its claims or defenses in
numbered paragraphs”); D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.1 (“Except for footnotes and quotations, the text of all
documents must be double spaced”).
The amended complaint “must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the
plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe
County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
We use the Iqbal/Twombly standard to determine whether Plaintiffs have stated a
plausible claim. Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1162–63 (10th Cir. 2011). In
applying this standard, we take Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded facts as true, view them in
the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, and draw all reasonable inferences from the
facts in favor of Plaintiffs. Id. at 1162. A plausible claim includes facts from which
we may reasonably infer Defendant's liability. Id. at 1163. Plaintiffs must nudge the
claim across the line from conceivable or speculative to plausible. Id. Allegations
that are “‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability” stop short of that line.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JFR Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 6

4
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Labels, conclusions, formulaic recitations of elements, and
naked assertions will not suffice. Id. An allegation is conclusory where it states an
inference without stating underlying facts or is devoid of any factual enhancement.
Kellum v. Mares, 657 Fed. App'x 763, 770 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (citing
Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). Conclusory allegations are “not entitled
to the assumption of truth.” Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1193 (10th
Cir. 2012). In fact, we disregard conclusory statements and look to the remaining
factual allegations to see whether Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim. Waller v.
City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277, 1282 (10th Cir. 2019). We must draw on
our experience and common sense in evaluating the plausibility of a claim. Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The degree of specificity needed to establish
plausibility and provide fair notice depends on the context and the type of case. Id.;
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008).
Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (footnote omitted). It is
helpful if a complaint includes a section for each defendant that sets forth the factual allegations
regarding that defendant. 	The amended complaint must clearly indicate which Defendants
Plaintiffs are asserting each claim or count against. 	The amended complaint does not need to
repeat factual allegations in each claim; the amended complaint may incorporate previous factual
allegations by reference.
The Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that a complaint explain
legal standards. The amended complaint need only reference the legal standard under which the
claim is being asserted and allege facts supporting the claim. See Fed. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a complaint
must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief”).
Service on Defendants
Plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to Section 1915 which provides that
the “officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [proceedings
in forma pauperis]”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The Court will not order service at this time because
the Court is ordering Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Court will address service after
Plaintiffs file an amended complaint.
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JFR Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Case Management
Generally, pro se litigants are held to the same standards of professional
responsibility as trained attorneys. It is a pro se litigant’s responsibility to become
familiar with and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (the “Local
Rules”).
Guide for Pro Se Litigants at 4, United States District Court, District of New Mexico (October
2022). The Local Rules, the Guide for Pro Se Litigants and a link to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available on the Court’s website: http://www.nmd.uscourts.gov.
Failure to comply with Court Orders and the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure
interferes with the judicial process and may result in monetary and non-monetary sanctions
including filing restrictions and dismissal of this case. 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)).
Compliance with Rule 11
The Court reminds Plaintiffs of their obligations pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se status
does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.”). Rule 11(b) provides:
Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written
motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating
it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's
knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JFR Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 6

6
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law
or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law
or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 may subject Plaintiffs
to sanctions, including monetary penalties and nonmonetary directives. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, Doc. 2, filed December 19, 2025, is GRANTED.
(ii) 	Plaintiffs shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, file an amended complaint
not exceeding 50 pages. Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in
dismissal of this case. The amended complaint must comply with the Federal and
Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
_____________________________________
KIRTAN KHALSA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01270-JFR Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 6