Boyd v. United States of America et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JAMES SCOTT BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:25-cv-00964-KRS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER and
ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, seeks permission to file documents electronically via
CM/ECF. See Motion for Leave to File Electronically (ECF/PACER), Doc. 6, filed October 16,
2025. The Court grants Plaintiff permission to file electronically in this case only. See Guide for
Pro Se Litigants at 13, District of New Mexico (October 2022) (“approval to electronically file
documents within a case must be granted by the presiding judge for each case in which the pro se
litigant wishes to file using their CM/ECF account”). The Court will revoke permission to file
electronically if Plaintiff abuses his electronic filing privilege or fails to comply with the rules and
procedures in the District of New Mexico’s Guide for Pro Se Litigants and the District of New
Mexico’s CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual. 	Account registration forms, procedure
manuals, 	and 	other 	information 	can 	be 	obtained 	at 	the 	Court’s 	website 	at
http://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/filing-information. 	This Order only grants Plaintiff permission to
participate in CM/ECF; Plaintiff is responsible for registering to become a participant. 	See
CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual, District of New Mexico (Revised June 2024).
Case 2:25-cv-00964-MIS-DLM Document 14 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
See Doc. 2, filed October 3, 2025 (“Application”). Plaintiff later paid the filing fee. See Doc. 7,
filed October 16, 2025. The Court denies Plaintiff’s Application as moot.
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 Plaintiff of his 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
Case 2:25-cv-00964-MIS-DLM Document 14 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 3

3
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:
(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 Plaintiff to
sanctions, including monetary penalties and nonmonetary directives. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically (ECF/PACER), Doc. 6, filed
October 16, 2025, is GRANTED.
(ii) 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, Doc. 2, filed October 3, 2025, is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2025.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00964-MIS-DLM Document 14 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 3