Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GUSTAVO GARDENIA AMARO,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civ. No. 25-512 KG/JFR
DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES,
Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
THIS MATTER is before the Court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on the Plaintiff’s Pro Se Complaint. Doc. 1.
On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint seeking “an order to compel Defendant to
issue a bona fide determination on my pending Form I-918 and/or Form(s) I-918A and their
related Form(s) I-765 for work authorization.” Doc. 1 at 1.
On June 4, 2025, the Court entered a Notice to Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, of his
obligations to prosecute his case, abide by the federal and local rules of civil procedure, and to
comply with his obligations pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 4.
On September 3, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause ordering Plaintiff to
show cause why the Court should not dismiss his case for his failure to timely serve Defendant.
Doc. 7. On September 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Proof of Service. Doc. 8. On
September 19, 2025, the Court entered a Second Order to Show Cause. Doc. 9. Therein, the
Court detailed the requirements for serving an agency of the United States and explained the
deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof of Service. Id. The Court then ordered Plaintiff to either show
Case 1:25-cv-00512-KG-JFR Document 11 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 3

2
cause within fourteen (14) days that he properly effected service or provide the Court with a
written explanation as to why he believes service was properly completed. Id. The Court
warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely show cause may result in dismissal of his case without
prejudice. Id.
Rule 12(b)(5) authorizes the Court to dismiss a complaint for “insufficient service of
process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Although no Defendant has moved to dismiss (or entered an
appearance in this litigation), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) permits a court to dismiss an
action sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to effect timely service:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—
on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Pro se litigants are allowed more latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct
defects in service of process and pleadings. Martinez-Jones v. Dulce Indep. Schs., No. 07-cv-
00703, 2008 WL 2229457, at *6 (D.N.M. Mar. 14, 2008) (quoting Moore v. Agency for Int’l
Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.D.C. 1993)). Courts “should at least supply minimal notice of the
consequences of not complying with procedural rules” to pro se litigants. Id. (internal quotations
omitted). This assistance does not, however, “constitute a license for a plaintiff filing pro se to
ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.; see also Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &
Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[T]his court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties
follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).
Here, Magistrate Judge Robbenhaar put Plaintiff on notice that Defendant had not been
served. Doc. 7. Judge Robbenhaar then put Plaintiff on notice that there were defects in service
Case 1:25-cv-00512-KG-JFR Document 11 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 3

3
of process that required correction. Doc. 9. Judge Robbenhaar also put Plaintiff on notice that
his failure to demonstrate within fourteen (14) days that he had properly effected service on
Defendant and/or respond to the Second Order to Show Cause could result in dismissal of his
case without prejudice. To date, Plaintiff has taken no steps to correct the deficiencies in service
of process and has not responded to the Second Order to Show Cause.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for insufficient service of process.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
1 Plaintiff’s response was due within fourteen days, October 3, 2025. However, three additional days were added to
accommodate service by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3) and 6(d).
Case 1:25-cv-00512-KG-JFR Document 11 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 3