Krystle Xylina Miller-Albarez v. United States of America, Social Security Administration, U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, World, Facebook, Donald Trump, State of New Mexico, Government, New Mexico Health Care Authority and Human Services Department

D. New Mexico

Krystle Xylina Miller-Albarez v. United States of America, Social Security Administration, U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, World, Facebook, Donald Trump, State of New Mexico, Government, New Mexico Health Care Authority and Human Services Department

DecidedFebruary 5, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-01269

StatusUnknown

This text of Krystle Xylina Miller-Albarez v. United States of America, Social Security Administration, U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, World, Facebook, Donald Trump, State of New Mexico, Government, New Mexico Health Care Authority and Human Services Department (Krystle Xylina Miller-Albarez v. United States of America, Social Security Administration, U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, World, Facebook, Donald Trump, State of New Mexico, Government, New Mexico Health Care Authority and Human Services Department) 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

Krystle Xylina Miller-Albarez v. United States of America, Social Security Administration, U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, World, Facebook, Donald Trump, State of New Mexico, Government, New Mexico Health Care Authority and Human Services Department, (D.N.M. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO KRYSTLE XYLINA MILLER-ALBAREZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:25-cv-01269-KWR-JHR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, WORLD, FACEBOOK, DONALD TRUMP, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, GOVERNMENT, NEW MEXICO HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY and HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, filed December 15, 2025. Plaintiff asks, among other things, that the Court: Stop [Defendants from] stealing my identity and stop making my eyesight … being stalked and sexually assaulted by a serial stalker girls and men who have preformed a serious medical malpractice procedure deteriating her the Plaintiff’s only 1. Plaintiff health. . . [and] stop allowing her the plaintiff to be murdered freely and violating all plaintiff constitutional rights.

[sic] Complaint at 1-2. United States Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter notified Plaintiff that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Order at 2, 4, Doc. 3, filed January 9, 2026 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this cae). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the January 30, 2026, deadline. Judge Ritter also notified Plaintiff she has not paid the $405.00 fee as required by federal law or filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (“Long Form Application”). Judge Ritter ordered Plaintiff to either pay the fee or file a Long Form Application. See Order at 1-2, 4 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely pay the fee or file a Long Form Application may result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not pay the fee

or file a Long Form Application by the January 30, 2026, deadline. The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with Judge Ritter’s Order to file an amended complaint and to file a Long Form Application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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)).

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

____/S/ Kea W. Riggs________________ 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 NEW MEXICO KRYSTLE XYLINA MILLER-ALBAREZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:25-cv-01269-KWR-JHR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, WORLD, FACEBOOK, DONALD TRUMP, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, GOVERNMENT, NEW MEXICO HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY and HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, filed December 15, 2025. Plaintiff asks, among other things, that the Court: Stop [Defendants from] stealing my identity and stop making my eyesight … being stalked and sexually assaulted by a serial stalker girls and men who have preformed a serious medical malpractice procedure deteriating her the Plaintiff’s only 1. Plaintiff health. . . [and] stop allowing her the plaintiff to be murdered freely and violating all plaintiff constitutional rights.

[sic] Complaint at 1-2. United States Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter notified Plaintiff that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Order at 2, 4, Doc. 3, filed January 9, 2026 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this cae). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the January 30, 2026, deadline. Judge Ritter also notified Plaintiff she has not paid the $405.00 fee as required by federal law or filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (“Long Form Application”). Judge Ritter ordered Plaintiff to either pay the fee or file a Long Form Application. See Order at 1-2, 4 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely pay the fee or file a Long Form Application may result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not pay the fee

or file a Long Form Application by the January 30, 2026, deadline. The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with Judge Ritter’s Order to file an amended complaint and to file a Long Form Application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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)).

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

____/S/ Kea W. Riggs________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Krystle Xylina Miller-Albarez v. United States of America, Social Security Administration, U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, World, Facebook, Donald Trump, State of New Mexico, Government, New Mexico Health Care Authority and Human Services Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krystle-xylina-miller-albarez-v-united-states-of-america-social-security-nmd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack