Rousseaux Castellanos v. Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
TEKISHA ROUSSEAUX CASTELLANOS,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KK
MANZANO MESA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
GSL PROPERTIES, INC.,
MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC,
GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, and
BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER REGARDING SERVICE
Pro se Plaintiff, who is disabled, is a tenant of Manzano Mesa Apartments which is:
(i) owned by Defendant Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership; and (ii) is managed by Defendant
Guardian Management, LLC. See Federal Complaint, Doc. 1, filed September 19, 2025
(“Complaint”). Plaintiff asserted discrimination claims pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act based on
Defendants exposing Plaintiff and her household to unsafe housing conditions. See Complaint
at 4. Plaintiff also asserted civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stating “[b]y colluding
with government actors and utilities, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of constitutional rights,
including due process, equal protection, and privacy.” Complaint at 4. Finally, Plaintiff asserted
state law claims for breach of warranty of habitability, negligence and infliction of emotional
distress. See Complaint at 4.
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 12

2
United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa notified Plaintiff of some deficiencies in the
Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Order for Amended Complaint,
Doc. 5, filed October 8, 2025. Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint on October 23, 2025. See
Doc. 6.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint. See Amended Complaint and
Supplemental Notice of Hazardous Conditions, Doc. 28, filed March 25, 2026 (“Second Amended
Complaint”).
Order Striking Second Amended Complaint
The Second Amended Complaint, which is less than two pages, contains 11 short
paragraphs. Plaintiff states the “Court has jurisdiction under federal law including the Fair
Housing Act and related statutes,” but does not identify the provision of the Fair Housing Act or
the related statutes under which her claims arise. See Davison v. Grant Thornton LLP, 582
Fed.Appx. 773, 775 (10th Cir. 2014) (“The complaint must identify the statutory or constitutional
provision under which the claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show that the case is one
arising under federal law”) (quoting Martinez v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 802 F.2d 1275, 1280
(10th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiff did not sign the Second Amended Complaint and the title of the Second
Amended Complaint does not name all the parties as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
10(a) and 11(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must
be signed by at least one attorney of record ... or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented
... The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being
called to the attorney's or party's attention”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must
name all the parties”).
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 12

3
Furthermore, the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim because it does not explain what each Defendant did to Plaintiff. See Nasious v. Two
Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to
him or her; when [each] defendant did it; how [each] defendant’s action harmed him or her; and,
what specific legal right the plaintiff believes [each] defendant violated”) (emphasis added). The
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint describe abnormal heat conditions, electrical
system defects, an unpermitted water heater relocation, airborne particulate contamination and
Plaintiff’s “medical risk.” Second Amended Complaint at 1. The only allegation regarding
Defendants’ actions states: “Defendants have acknowledged complaints but failed to adequately
investigate or remediate the hazardous conditions.” Second Amended Complaint.
The Court strikes Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for failing to comply with
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 10(a) and 11(a) and proceeds with Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint. 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)).
Order Dismissing Claims
The Amended Complaint asserts four claims: (i) Fair Housing Act violations for
discrimination and retaliation; (ii) Americans with Disabilities Act Violation; (iii) Rehabilitation
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 12

4
Act of 1973 Violation; and (iv) Civil Rights Violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Amended
Complaint at 19, 21-23.
It appears some of Plaintiff’s federal law claims should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which states “the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted.” to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Fair Housing Act Claims
Plaintiff asserts discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to the Fair Housing Act
against Defendants Bernalillo County, Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian
Management LLC. See Amended Complaint at 19-20.
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any person in the terms,
conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities
in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of . . . that person; or [] any person
associated with that buyer or renter.” 24 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A) and (C). “[W]ith regard to
housing discrimination, a plaintiff need not prove the malice or discriminatory animus of a
defendant to make out a case of intentional discrimination where the defendant expressly treats
someone protected by the [Fair Housing Act] in a different manner than others.” Bangerter v.
Orem City Corp., 46 F.3d 1491, 1501 (10th Cir. 1995); Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Center, Inc.
v. Saint George City, 685 F.3d 917, 923 (10th Cir. 2012) (the Fair Housing Act “requires
accommodations that are necessary (or indispensable or essential) to achieving the objective of
equal housing opportunities between those with disabilities and those without”). The Fair Housing
Act also makes it unlawful to retaliate against a person for exercising their rights under the Fair
Housing Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (“It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 12

5
interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or
enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or
enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title”).
Liberally construed, it appears the Amended Complaint may state discrimination and
retaliation claims pursuant to the Fair Housing Act against Defendants Manzano Mesa Limited
Partnership and Guardian Management LLC. The Court denies Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the
Fair Housing Act against Defendant Bernalillo County without prejudice because, as discussed
below, there are no allegations showing that Bernalillo County or its employees discriminated or
retaliated against Plaintiff.
Americans with Disabilities Act Claims
Plaintiff alleges Defendants Bernalillo County, Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and
Guardian Management LLC violated Title II and/or Title III of the ADA by failing and refusing to
make reasonable accommodations that would allow equal access to the dwelling for Plaintiff, who
is disabled and her daughter and grandson who are also disabled. See Amended Complaint at 3,
21.
The Amended Complaint fails to state claims pursuant to Title III of ADA. Title III of the
ADA states: “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of
any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a
place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). “At least one federal circuit and several
federal district courts have observed that residential facilities do not qualify as “public
accommodations” for purposes of the ADA.” Collins v. PRG Real Estate, 2018 WL 2166214, *2
(6th Cir.) (citing Regents of Mercersburg Coll. v. Republic Franklin Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 159, 165
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 12

6
n.8 (3d Cir. 2006); Sutton v. Freedom Square Ltd., No. 07–14897, 2008 WL 4601372, at *6–7
(E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2008) (collecting district court cases); Coe v. Cross-Lines Retirement Center,
Inc., 645 F.Supp.3d 1126, 1130 (D. Kansas 2022) (“[f]acially, the [ADA] does not include a private
residence, such as a residential home or apartment.” Instead, the ADA regulates ‘public
accommodations’ to ensure accessibility for disabled persons. Relevant to this case, a public
accommodation must affect commerce and be ‘a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless
shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment”) (quoting Phibbs
v. Am. Prop. Mgmt., 2008 WL 746977, at *3 (D. Utah 2008)).
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Title III of the ADA without prejudice.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the ADA against Defendant Bernalillo County
without prejudice because, as discussed below, there are no allegations showing that Bernalillo
County or its employees discriminated against Plaintiff. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Title II of the
ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be
excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of
a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity”).
Rehabilitation Act Claims
Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794,
against Defendants Bernalillo County, Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian
Management LLC. See Amended Complaint at 22-23.
The Rehabilitation Act provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability
in the United States . . . shall solely by reason of her or his disability be excluded from the
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (emphasis added). There
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 6 of 12

7
are no allegations that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by exposing her to unsafe
housing conditions because of her disability.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794,
without prejudice.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims
Plaintiff asserts a claim against Defendant Bernalillo County pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
stating:
79. Defendant Bernalillo County, acting under color of state law through its
housing officials, inspectors, and contractors, deprived Plaintiff of
constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection of the law.
80. The County’s failure to train, supervise, and discipline employees
responsible for inspections and housing enforcement constitutes deliberate
indifference to tenants’ rights.
81. The wrongful acts described herein were committed pursuant to official
policies or customs that directly caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
Amended Complaint at 23-24.
“To hold a local government liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) a municipal
employee committed a constitutional violation, and (2) a municipal policy or custom was the
moving force behind the constitutional deprivation.” McLain v. Sheriff of Mayes County, 595
Fed.Appx. 748, 753-754 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing Myers v. Okla. Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 151
F.3d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir.1998) and Monell v. Dep't of Soc. *754 Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694
(1978)). “A ‘single isolated incident’ does not prove the existence of an unconstitutional policy or
custom.” Id. (citing City of Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 821, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d
791 (1985)).
The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant
Bernalillo County. The only factual allegations regarding Defendant Bernalillo County are
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 7 of 12

8
(i) “Defendant Bernalillo County failed to enforce housing-quality-standards inspections;”
(ii) “Plaintiff repeatedly reported these excessive charges to management and Defendant Bernalillo
County, explaining that faulty wiring and the unpermitted water-heater installation were likely
responsible, but no inspection or corrective action followed; (iii) “Despite repeated complaints to
both property management and Defendant Bernalillo County, no corrective action or independent
inspection occurred;” and (iv) “Defendant Bernalillo County accepted these maintenance entries
as proof of compliance without conducting independent verification.” Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 9,
15, 23, 27. There are no allegations showing that Bernalillo County employees deprived Plaintiff
of a federally protected right. See Schaffer v. Salt Lake City Corp., 814 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir.
2016) ("The two elements of a Section 1983 claim are (1) deprivation of a federally protected right
by (2) an actor acting under color of state law"). Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that the wrongful
acts “were committed pursuant to official policies or customs” is not sufficient to state a claim
without supporting factual allegations. See Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272,
1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (“Conclusory allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth. In fact,
we disregard conclusory statements and look to the remaining factual allegations to see whether
Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Court denies Plaintiff’s against Defendant Bernalillo County pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice.
Defendants GSL Properties, Inc. and Mission Rock Residential, LLC
The caption of the Amended Complaint list GSL Properties, Inc. and Mission Rock
Residential, LLC as defendants. See Amended Complaint at 1. The only allegations in the
Amended Complaint regarding Defendant GSL Properties, Inc. state: (i) Water temperature
“fluctuations were minor upon moving into the unit but worsened after Defendants GSL, Manzano
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 8 of 12

9
Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian Management LLC performed repeated ‘repairs;’” (ii)
“when Plaintiff reported that a stove heating element malfunctioned, Defendants GSL and or
Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian Management LLC delayed repairs for a few
months;” and (iii) GSL “acknowledged the condition [of dust accumulation throughout the
apartment] and stated that the ducts would be cleaned; however, only a limited air-duct service
was performed, and the dust continues to emerge from walls and ceilings.” Amended Complaint
¶¶ 31, 37, 49. The only allegation in the Amended Complaint regarding Mission Rock Residential,
LLC states Mission Rock Residential, LLC “acknowledged the condition [of dust accumulation
throughout the apartment] and stated that the ducts would be cleaned; however, only a limited air-
duct service was performed, and the dust continues to emerge from walls and ceilings.” Amended
Complaint ¶ 49. None of the four claims in the Amended Complaint are asserted against
Defendants GSL Properties, Inc. or Mission Rock Residential, LLC.
Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction “to stop ongoing
retaliation, prevent unauthorized or unsafe entries into Plaintiff’s home, and compel Defendants to
correct dangerous habitability and life-safety hazards that Plaintiff and her medically vulnerable
family at extreme and imminent risk of harm.” Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction at 1-2, Doc. 9, filed November 25, 2025. Rule 65(b)
provides:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to
the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse
party can be heard in opposition; and
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 9 of 12

10
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and
the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for a temporary restraining order
because Plaintiff has not certified in writing any efforts made to give notice to Defendants or the
reasons why notice should not be required.
Rule 65(a)(1) provides that “[n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without
notice to the adverse party.” The Rule's notice requirement necessarily requires that
the party opposing the preliminary injunction has the opportunity to be heard and
to present evidence. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters &
Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 434 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d
435 (1974) (“The notice required by Rule 65(a) before a preliminary injunction can
issue implies a hearing in which the [opposing party] is given a fair opportunity to
oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition.”); Commerce Park at
DFW Freeport v. Mardian Constr. Co., 729 F.2d 334, 341 (5th Cir.1984) (explaining
that Rule 65(a) mandates that where factual disputes are presented, “the parties
must be given a fair opportunity and a meaningful hearing to present their differing
versions of those facts before a preliminary injunction may be granted”).
Harris County, Tex. v. CarMax Auto Superstores Inc., 177 F.3d 306, 325-26 (10th Cir. 1999). The
Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice because the Motion
does not show that Defendants Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian Management
LLC have received notice of Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff may file a second motion for a
preliminary injunction after Defendants Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian
Management LLC appear in this case and have an opportunity to be heard.
Order Regarding Service
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order directing the United States Marshal to effect
service. See Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Status of Service and for Order Directing U.S. Marshal
to Effect Service, Doc. 25, filed February 3, 2026.
Plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Order
Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Doc. 5, filed October 8, 2025. Rule 4 of the
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 10 of 12

11
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states the Court must order that “service be made by a United
States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court” “if the plaintiff
is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
The Court orders the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order, summonses and a
copy of the Amended Complaint, Doc. 6, filed October 23, 2025, to the United States Marshals
Service for service on Defendants Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian Management
LLC at the addresses provided in Plaintiff’s Notice. See Notice of Service Addresses for
Defendants, Doc. 19, filed December 23, 2025; Fed. R. Civ. 4(h) (serving corporations).
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) The Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s [Second] Amended Complaint and Supplemental
Notie of Hazardous Conditions, Doc. 28, filed March 25, 2026
(ii) The following claims are DISMISSED without prejudice:
(a) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Bernalillo County, Manzano Mesa Limited
Partnership and Guardian Management LLC pursuant to Title III the Americans
with Disabilities Act;
(b) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bernalillo County pursuant to Title II of the
ADA;
(c) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Bernalillo County, Manzano Mesa Limited
Partnership and Guardian Management LLC pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and
(d) Plaintiff claims against Defendant Bernalillo County pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff may seek to file a third amended complaint pursuant to
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 11 of 12

12
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after Defendants Manzano Mesa
Limited Partnership and Guardian Management LLC appear in this case.
(iii) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction, Doc. 9, filed November 25, 2025, is DENIED.
(iv) Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Status of Service and for Order Directing U.S.
Marshal to Effect Service, Doc. 25, filed February 3, 2026, is GRANTED.
(v) The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this Order, summonses for
Defendants Manzano Mesa Limited Partnership and Guardian Management LLC
and a copy of the Amended Complaint, Doc. 6, filed October 23, 2025, to the United
States Marshals Service. The United States Marshals Service shall serve a copy of
this Order, a summons and a copy of the Amended Complaint on:
Manzano Mesa Investors, LLC
Registered Agent: CT Corporation System
206 S. Coronado Ave.
Espanola, NM 87532
Guardian Management, LLC
Registered Agent: CT Corporation System
206 S. Coronado Ave.
Espanola, NM 87532
/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.
Case 1:25-cv-00910-KG-KRS Document 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 12 of 12