Andy Bourdon and Laura Porter v. City of Santa Fe, City of Espanola, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00962
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ANDY BOURDON and LAURA PORTER, Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:25-cv-00962-WJ-KK CITY OF SANTA FE, CITY OF ESPANOLA, et al.,

Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pro se Plaintiffs asserted civil rights claims against the City of Santa Fe, City of Santa Fe officials and City of Santa Fe Police Officers. See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed October 2, 2025 (“Complaint”). United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa notified Plaintiffs of some deficiencies in the Complaint and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. See Order for Amended Complaint, Doc. 6, filed October 8, 2025. Plaintiffs also asserted, in another case, civil rights claims against the City of Espanola, City of Espanola officials and City of Espanola Police Officers. See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed October 2, 2025, in Bourdon v. City of Espanola, No. 1:25-cv-00960-SMD-KK (“City of Espanola”). Judge Khalsa notified Plaintiffs of some deficiencies in the City of Espanola complaint and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in City of Espanola. See Order for Amended Complaint, Doc. 6, filed October 8, 2025, in City of Espanola. Because the original complaint in City of Espanola stated Plaintiffs were also asserting claims against the City of Santa Fe, its mayor and police officers, Judge Khalsa notified Plaintiffs they may not assert duplicative claims against a Defendant in City of Espanola and in this case. See Order for Amended Complaint at 4, in City of Espanola. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in this case asserting claims against the City of Santa Fe Defendants and the City of Espanola Defendants. See First Amended Complaint, Doc. 7, filed October 21, 2025. Plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint in City of Espanola asserting

claims against the City of Santa Fe Defendants and the City of Espanola Defendants. See First Amended Complaint, Doc. 7, filed October 21, 2025, in City of Espanola. The Court dismisses this case because the Amended Complaint in this case is identical to the amended complaint in City of Espanola. “District courts are accorded a great deal of latitude and discretion in determining whether one action is duplicative of another, but generally, a suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court, as part of its general power to administer its docket, “may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit.” Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000).

Park v. TD Ameritrade Trust Co., Inc., 461 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (10th Cir. 2012); Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have discretion to control their dockets by dismissing duplicative cases. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) (‘As between federal district courts ... though no precise rule has evolved, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.’)”). IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

/s/ _________________________________________ WILLIAM P. JOHNSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE