Almeida v. Branch

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Mexico
DecidedAugust 5, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-00734
StatusUnknown

This text of Almeida v. Branch (Almeida v. Branch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Almeida v. Branch, (D.N.M. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO VANESSA ALMEIDA, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-00734-SCY FRANK BRANCH and CODY BOSWELL, Defendants. ORDER FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ORDER TO FILE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Pro se Plaintiff asserts that Defendants, both of whom are New Mexico State Police Officers, “unreasonably disregarded an excessive risk to” the safety of Plaintiff’s 14-year-old daughter and failed to protect her daughter from physical assault. Complaint at 1, Doc. 1, filed August 4, 2025. There are no other factual allegations in the Complaint. Order for Amended Complaint Plaintiff requests that the Court provide Plaintiff with a complaint form. See Complaint at 2. The Court has identified some deficiencies in the Complaint, described below, and orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Lowrey v. Sandoval County Children Youth and Families Department, 2023 WL 4560223, at *2 (10th Cir. July 17, 2023) (“Given a referral for non-dispositive pretrial matters, a magistrate judge may point out deficiencies in the complaint [and] order a litigant to show cause”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

First, it appears Plaintiff is asserting claims on behalf of her minor daughter. Plaintiff may not assert claims pro se on behalf of her daughter because Plaintiff is not an attorney authorized to practice in this Court. See Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000) (“A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others”); Kanth v. Lubeck, 123 F. App’x 921, 923 n.1 (10th Cir. 2005) (“as a non- lawyer parent, appearing pro se, [plaintiff] may not represent his minor children in federal court”) (citing Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986) (“under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1654 [stating parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel], a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent acting as next friend if the parent is

not represented by an attorney”)). Second, the Complaint does not contain allegations describing what Defendants did to Plaintiff or identify what claims Plaintiff is asserting against Defendants. 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 in original). Third, the Complaint contains the name of Plaintiff’s minor daughter. Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that papers filed with the Court may only include a

minor’s initials, not the minor’s name. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) (listing other information that may not be included in filed papers). Plaintiff may include her daughter’s initials in papers filed with the Court but shall not include her daughter’s name, birth date, social security number, taxpayer-identification number, or any financial account numbers. The Court orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief sought). Order to File Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff states she is “indigent and living under ‘the very low income’ bracket of society” and requests that the Court provide Plaintiff with an Application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Complaint at 2. Federal law requires that the Clerk of Court “require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court . . . to pay a filing fee of $350 . . . [and] such additional

fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), (b).1 The Court “may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Because Plaintiff states she is indigent and has requested an Application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court orders Plaintiff to file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form).

Service on Defendants Section 1915 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 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and an Application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will address service after this Order is resolved.

1 The fee for instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding is comprised of a $350.00 filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. §1914, and a $55.00 administrative fee. 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 F. App’x 352, 354 (10th Cir.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
213 F.3d 1320 (Tenth Circuit, 2000)
Olsen v. Mapes
333 F.3d 1199 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
Kanth v. Lubeck
123 F. App'x 921 (Tenth Circuit, 2005)
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents
492 F.3d 1158 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
Yang v. Archuleta
525 F.3d 925 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
Gustafson v. Luke
696 F. App'x 352 (Tenth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Almeida v. Branch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almeida-v-branch-nmd-2025.