Brown v. Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO BERNADINE BROWN,

Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-00649-KG-SCY CENTRAL BAPTIST ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, asserted civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of “procedural due process, equal protection, and religious liberty through unauthorized litigation, misuse of judicial process, and discriminatory enforcement of a deed restriction.” Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Related Statutes at 2, Doc. 6, filed July 11, 2025 (“Amended Complaint”). The Court notified Plaintiff that the Amended Complaint failed to state claims and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case and to file a second amended Complaint. See Order to Show Cause, Doc. 32, filed September 4, 2025 (Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause and her second amended complaint are due September 25, 2025). Plaintiff has also filed several motions seeking, on her

behalf and on behalf of TrueVine Baptist Church and members of the congregation, injunctive and declaratory relief and summary judgment which are currently pending. See Doc’s 14-16, 20-22, 25- 27 (“Pending Motions”). The Court subsequently dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the Second Judicial District Court and Second Judicial District Judge Erin O’Connell. See Order Dismissing Claims, Doc. 23, filed August 28, 2025. The only Defendants remaining in this case are: (i) Central Baptist Association of New Mexico (“Association”); (ii) Charles Hughson, counsel for the Association; (iii) 21st Mortgage Corporation; (iv) Steven Hoffman, counsel for 21st Mortgage; and (v) John/Jane Does 1-10. See Amended Complaint at 7-8. The Court also notified Plaintiff that she has not shown that she properly served the remaining Defendants. See Order, Doc. 33, filed September 4, 2025. Consequently, the Court cannot, at this time, grant the relief Plaintiff seeks in the Pending Motions because Plaintiff has not shown the Court has personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Oaklawn Apartments, 959 F.2d 170, 174 (10th Cir. 1992) (“plaintiff has the burden of establishing personal

jurisdiction and of establishing the validity of the service of process”) (citations omitted); Guebara v. Bascue, 2025 WL 1342089 *7 (10th Cir. 2025) (“Because [defendant] was not properly served, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over her and could not enter a judgment in her favor or against her”) (citing Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4”)). Finally, Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf TrueVine Baptist Church. See Amended Complaint at 1. The Court dismissed those claims because Plaintiff, who is not an attorney authorized to practice in this Court, cannot bring claims on behalf of TrueVine Baptist Church. See Order Dismissing Claims at 3.

The Court denies the Pending Motions without prejudice. The Pending Motions were filed before the Court dismissed the claims against the Second Judicial Court and Second Judicial District Judge Erin O’Connell and the claims brought on behalf of TrueVine Baptist Church. Consequently, the relief those motions seek against the Second Judicial Court and Judge O’Connell and for TrueVine Baptist Church is not available at this time. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing the remaining Defendants were properly served. Plaintiff may renew the motions, as appropriate, after she shows cause why the Court should not dismiss this case, files a second amended complaint, and shows that she has properly served Defendants or that the Court otherwise has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. IT IS ORDERED that the following Motions are DENIED without prejudice: (i) Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 14, filed August 1, 2025. The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) Motion for Declaratory Judgment on Discriminatory Deed Conditions, Unequal Property Treatment, and Violation of Federal and State Law, Doc. 15, filed August 1,

2025; (iii) Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Doc. 16, filed August 1, 2025; (iv) Motion to Dismiss [state court proceeding], Doc. 20, filed August 15, 2025; (v) Amended Motion to Stay Settlement and Dismiss Case [in state court] With Prejudice, Doc. 21, filed August 15, 2025; (vi) Motion to Stay or Enjoin Parallel State Proceedings, Doc. 22, filed August 27, 2025; (vii) Motion to Stay All State Court Proceedings for Lack of Standing and Jurisdiction, Doc. 25, filed August 29, 2025; (viii) Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Relief, Doc. 26, filed August 29, 2025;

(ix) Notice of Clarification and Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Article III Standing, Bad Faith Litigation, and Due Process Violations, Doc. 27, filed August 29, 2025. /s/__________________________________ KENNETH J. GONZALES1 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 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.