Ford v. Bichotte-Hermelyn et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DYLAN FORD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-01365-SMD-LF
RODNEYSE BICHOTTE-HERMELYN,
BRIAN GOTLIEB and
JOY CAMPANELLI,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, filed
May 1, 2026, and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (Short Form), Doc. 2, filed May 1, 2026 (“Short Form Application”).
The only factual allegations in the Complaint state:
1. 	Brian Gotlieb and Joy Campanelli obstructed justice,
2. 	Rodneyse Bichotte-Hermelyn participated in the process,
3. 	The compensation amount is to be decided by the jury.
Complaint at 1.
United States Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing notified Plaintiff that the Complaint failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint. See Order at 2, 4, Doc. 4, filed May 4, 2026 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely
file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not file an amended
complaint by the May 25, 2026, deadline.
Case 1:26-cv-01365-SMD-LF Document 7 Filed 05/28/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis using a Short Form Application.
Judge Fashing notified Plaintiff the Short Form Application does not provide sufficient
information for the Court to determine whether a plaintiff is unable to pay the required fees and
ordered Plaintiff to file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (Long Form). See Order at 1, 4 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely file a Long Form
Application may result in denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis). Plaintiff did not file
a Long Form Application by the May 25, 2026, deadline.
Judge Fashing’s Order to file an amended complaint and to file a Long Form Application
that the Clerk mailed to Plaintiff was “returned as undeliverable.” See Doc. 5, filed May 19, 2026;
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.6 (“parties appearing pro se have a continuing duty to notify the Clerk, in
writing of any change in their . . . mailing address”).
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with
Judge Fashing’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)).
Because it is dismissing this case and based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Judge Fashing’s
Order to file a Long Form Application, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Short Form Application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Case 1:26-cv-01365-SMD-LF Document 7 Filed 05/28/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) 	Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Short Form), Doc. 2, filed May 1, 2026, is DENIED.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01365-SMD-LF Document 7 Filed 05/28/26 Page 3 of 3