KELLY A. ALLEN v. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10

D. Montana

KELLY A. ALLEN v. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10

DecidedDecember 2, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00093

StatusUnknown

This text of KELLY A. ALLEN v. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10 (KELLY A. ALLEN v. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

KELLY A. ALLEN v. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, (D. Mont. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

KELLY A. ALLEN, CV 25-93-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, Vs. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his ORDER ON DEFENDANT official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in JUDGE THOMAS PARDY’S her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendant Judge Thomas Pardy’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13), filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on September 18, 2025. Plaintiff Kelly A. Allen did not respond. Under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(B)(ii), “failure to file a response brief may be deemed an admission that the motion is well- taken.” Upon review, and in light of Allen’s failure to respond, the Court finds the Motion is well-taken and should be granted. Ordinarily, “[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Where amendment would be futile, there is no reason to prolong

litigation by allowing further amendments. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002); Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983). Because Allen’s claims against Judge Pardy rest on naming a defendant who is immune from suit, affording her the opportunity to amend would be futile. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Defendant Judge Thomas Pardy’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant Judge Thomas Pardy. a? DATED this __/" day of December, 2025.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

KELLY A. ALLEN, CV 25-93-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, Vs. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his ORDER ON DEFENDANT official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in JUDGE THOMAS PARDY’S her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendant Judge Thomas Pardy’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13), filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on September 18, 2025. Plaintiff Kelly A. Allen did not respond. Under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(B)(ii), “failure to file a response brief may be deemed an admission that the motion is well- taken.” Upon review, and in light of Allen’s failure to respond, the Court finds the Motion is well-taken and should be granted. Ordinarily, “[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Where amendment would be futile, there is no reason to prolong

litigation by allowing further amendments. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002); Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983). Because Allen’s claims against Judge Pardy rest on naming a defendant who is immune from suit, affording her the opportunity to amend would be futile. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Defendant Judge Thomas Pardy’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant Judge Thomas Pardy. a? DATED this __/" day of December, 2025.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

KELLY A. ALLEN v. JUDGE THOMAS PARDY, in his official capacity; JUDGE KOLAR, in her official capacity; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA; CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-a-allen-v-judge-thomas-pardy-in-his-official-capacity-judge-mtd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack