Shapiro v. Campanelli

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOHN SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01252-JCH-JFR
JOY CAMPANELLI,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, filed
December 16, 2025, and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Short Form), Doc. 2, filed December 16, 2025 (“Short Form Application”).
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar notified pro se Plaintiff that his
Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint, and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in
dismissal of this case. See Order, Doc. 4, filed December 17, 2025 (also ordering Plaintiff to file
an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (“Long
Form Application”)). Plaintiff did not file an amended Complaint or a Long Form Application by
the January 7, 2026, deadline. Judge Robbenhaar’s Order, which the Clerk mailed to Plaintiff, was
returned as undeliverable. See Doc. 5, filed January 5, 2026 (marked “return to sender, insufficient
address, unable to forward”); Doc. 6, filed January 8, 2026 (marked “return to sender, attempted
unknown, unable to forward”); D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.6 (“All attorneys of record and parties
appearing pro se have a continuing duty to notify the Clerk, in writing, of any change in their
. . . mailing addresses”).
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JCH-JFR Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with
Judge Robbenhaar’s Order to file an amended complaint and to file a Long Form Application. 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)). The Court denies Plaintiff’s
Short Form Application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs because the Court is
dismissing this case.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Short Form), Doc. 2, filed December 16, 2025, is DENIED.
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JCH-JFR Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 2