Waddle v. Mullendore et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AUDRIA WADDLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-00768-JD
)
JOSHUA MULLENDORE, DOC Employee; 	)
LYNN MCGUIRE, Judge; 	)
AMANDA DILL, PO; and 	)
CLEVELAND COUNTY COURTS, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Audria Waddle’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint
[Doc. No. 28]. For the reasons outlined below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint for failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders to cure deficiencies and for
failure to state a claim.
Prior to this order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure deficiencies in her
complaint. In a July 17, 2025 order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend her complaint to
conform with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), requiring “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” [Doc. No. 10 at 1–2 (“In other
words, ‘to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant
did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or
her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.’”) (quoting
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 9

2
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007))].1
Additionally, the Court advised that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994),
would preclude Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, as pled, because Plaintiff sought relief
“vacat[ing] [her] sentences in all [their] entirety,” “removal of wrongful charges,” and
“termination of [a] wrongful revocation” but “does not allege that her conviction or
sentence has been rendered invalid by a state court, reversed on direct appeal, expunged
by executive order, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus.” [Id. at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted)]. The Court ordered Plaintiff
to cure the deficiencies by filing an amended complaint and warned that “[f]ailure to
comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to
refiling and without further warning by the Court.” [Id.]. The Court reiterated that
Plaintiff needed to cure deficiencies in her complaint in a July 18, 2025 order prohibiting
Plaintiff from filing additional motions until she filed an amended complaint. [Doc. No.
16]. The Court noted this again in an order of October 28, 2025, giving Plaintiff until
November 18, 2025, to file an amended complaint, and directing Plaintiff to the Court’s
previous orders [Doc. Nos. 10, 16], the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s
Local Civil Rules. [Doc. No. 25 at 3].
Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint naming Joshua Mullendore,
Cleveland County Courts, Amanda Dill, and Judge McGuire as Defendants. [Doc. No. 28
1 In this order, the Court uses page numbering from the CM/ECF stamp at the top
of the filing on the district court docket.
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 9

3
at 7].2
As a preliminary matter, the Amended Complaint does not comply with the Local
Rules regarding formatting. See LCvR5.2(a) (requiring filings to be double-spaced).
Additionally, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s prior orders regarding curing
deficiencies in her complaint. On December 9, 2025, the Court provided Plaintiff with a
notice that, in connection with Defendant Judge McGuire’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No.
29], the Court intended to review Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to see if it complies
with the Court’s prior orders and whether it states a claim upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [Doc. No. 30 at 1]. The
Court gave Plaintiff the option to file a brief presenting argument regarding why her
Amended Complaint complied with the Court’s orders and why her Amended Complaint
states a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Id.]. Plaintiff declined to do so.
In reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court is mindful that Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519 (1972), requires a liberal construction of pro se complaints. The Court may
not, however, “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or
construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170,
1173–74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).
A plaintiff bears “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal
2 These are the defendants the Court is able to discern from the Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff’s allegations implicate other individuals but do not specifically name
them or identify them with specificity. See LCvR3.1 (“[P]ro se litigants are required to
number each party separately in the caption of the initiating document, plaintiffs
consecutively and defendants consecutively.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 9

4
claim could be based.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. “[C]onclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be
based.” Id.
“[A] court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim if ‘it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts
alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.’”
Rockefeller v. Chu, 471 F. App’x 829, 830 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (quoting Hall,
935 F.2d at 1110). A complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The majority of the Amended Complaint focuses upon Defendant Mullendore.
Plaintiff asserts numerous causes of action against Mullendore specifically. [See Doc. No.
28 ¶¶ 1–7]. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint outlines the following factual allegations
against Mullendore: he hacked Plaintiff’s “internet accounts” and cyberstalked her [id.
¶ 1]; he snuck into Plaintiff’s house and stole her identification [id. ¶ 2]; he physically
assaulted Plaintiff [id. ¶ 3]; he stole Plaintiff’s phone [id. ¶ 4]; and he brought false
charges against Plaintiff [id. ¶ 7]. Even in light of the Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to
distinguish which claims she is asserting against which Defendants, the Court has
difficulty determining the precise causes of actions Plaintiff is asserting against
Mullendore because the Amended Complaint references many causes of action.
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 9

5
The Court will begin with Plaintiffs’ federal claims against Mullendore. In
connection with her allegations against Mullendore specifically,3 Plaintiff states
Mullendore violated the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth
Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. [See id. ¶¶ 1–7].
Plaintiff also alleges a number of violations of federal criminal laws, which do not
necessarily include private rights of action. [See id.]. The Court presumes Plaintiff
pursues these constitutional and federal claims via a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against
Mullendore. To state a § 1983 claim, “a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The Amended Complaint does not explain who Mullendore is,
and more significantly, the Amended Complaint does not contain allegations that
Mullendore was acting under the color of state law, i.e., that he is a state official acting in
his official capacity or was working in concert with a state official when he committed
the above acts. “The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that
the defendant in a § 1983 action have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law
and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.”
West, 487 U.S. at 49 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Amended
Complaint contains no allegations that support that Mullendore was acting under the
color of state law as it pertains to the causes of actions raised against Mullendore
3 As discussed below, Plaintiff asserts a number of claims against all Defendants.
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 5 of 9

6
specifically. Accordingly, Plaintiff has no basis for a § 1983 claim against Mullendore,
which encompasses any alleged violation of federal law or the Constitution. In the
absence of any viable federal claim against Mullendore, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against him. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c) (authorizing the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction”).
Plaintiff also makes specific factual allegations against Defendant Dill. The
Amended Complaint states “Amanda Dill violated my civil and constitutional rights by
engaging in the illegal activities with state judges, and malicious state actors.” [See Doc.
No. 28 ¶ 11]. Plaintiff then details factual allegations against Dill. [See id.]. Plaintiff does
not, however, identify which civil and constitutional rights Dill violated. Construing
Plaintiff’s allegations liberally as a § 1983 claim against Dill, Plaintiff still has to identify
which constitutional rights Dill violated as a basis for her claim. Plaintiff also states that
Dill committed libel, slander, and defamation. [Id.]. As those causes of action would arise
pursuant to state law, Plaintiff would have to state valid federal claims in order for the
Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, which she has
failed to do.
Regarding the remaining causes of action in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff does not tie conduct of each Defendant to causes of action. Plaintiff has not
complied with the Court’s order requiring her to comply with Rule 8(a). [See Doc. No.
10]. Specifically, the Court advised Plaintiff that “[t]he Complaint does not specifically
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 6 of 9

7
allege what each defendant did to Ms. Waddle and how those actions violated Ms.
Waddle’s rights.” [Id. at 2]. The majority of the Amended Complaint focuses upon the
alleged conduct of Mullendore. [See Doc. No. 28]. It also identifies specific actions of
Dill. The Amended Complaint does not, however, adequately identify the conduct of the
remaining Defendants, except for conclusory allegations. Plaintiff lists a number of
claims against all Defendants:
Violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 making this a civil rights violation under the
law 18 U.S.C. 241 and 18 U.S.C. 242 under the HOBBS ACT 18 U.S.C.
1951 by targeting a constitutional or federally protected right and involves
the USE OF ABUSE OF OFFICIAL POWER. 18 U.S.C. 245 prohibits
interference by force or threat which includes EXTORTIONATE
THREATS with a person’s participation in specific activities. While the
ACT OF EXTORTION itself is a crime, the civil rights violations arises
when the extortion is committed by an authority figure abusing their power
and targeting plaintiff’s individual rights based on their protected status.
Violation of plaintiff’s 4th amendment right through malicious prosecution.
[Id. at 7]. As detailed in the Court’s prior order, these allegations fail to associate specific
conduct of each Defendant with how those actions violated Plaintiff’s rights. [See Doc.
No. 10 at 2 (“The Complaint does not specifically allege what each defendant did to Ms.
Waddle and how those actions violated Ms. Waddle’s rights. Without such allegations,
the defendants cannot prepare their defense, and the Court cannot properly adjudicate the
merits of Ms. Waddle’s claims.”)].
Additionally, the allegations against Dill, Judge McGuire, and the Cleveland
County Courts all impugn the validity of Plaintiff’s underlying conviction. [See Doc. No.
28 ¶¶ 9, 11]. The Amended Complaint implicates criminal charges against Plaintiff, and
the only relief specifically requested by Plaintiff is to dismiss the “false charges” against
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 7 of 9

8
her in state court. [Id. at 7]. As the Court previously explained in its prior order, Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 486–87, would preclude Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, as pled,
because Plaintiff “does not allege that her conviction or sentence has been rendered
invalid by a state court, reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, or called
into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” [Doc. No. 10 at 3].
According to Heck, “when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district
court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction or sentence[.]” 512 U.S. at 487. The allegations Plaintiff
makes against Dill, Judge McGuire, and the Cleveland County Courts would impugn the
validity of Plaintiff’s conviction, as demonstrated by the relief she seeks. [See Doc. No.
28 at 7 (“Plaintiff is begging the federal courts to issue immediate protection from the
state courts because of abuse being done to her and to dismiss BOTH the false charges
against plaintiff as they were never real to begin with . . . .”)]. Accordingly, the Court is
unable to consider claims attacking the validity of criminal charges against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also indicates she is pursuing a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
[Id. ¶ 8]. Plaintiff does not, however, name a defendant/defendants associated with this
claim. [Id. (“Ineffectiveness of counsel through the entire duration of the criminal
proceedings as multiple attorneys were hired and did not do their jobs they were paid to
do to defend plaintiff.”)]. Plaintiff states that she had multiple attorneys and enumerates a
list of things that she claims rendered their counsel ineffective but does not tie specific
conduct to any named defendant, thus failing to comply with the Court’s prior orders.
[See id.].
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 8 of 9

9
For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 28] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. A separate
judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of January 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 31 Filed 01/15/26 Page 9 of 9