District Court, D. New Mexico, 2025

Chavez v. UNM Sandoval Regional Medical Center

Chavez v. UNM Sandoval Regional Medical Center
District Court, D. New Mexico · Decided April 16, 2025
Chavez v. UNM Sandoval Regional Medical Center

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JESSICA LEA CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-00289-SMD-DLM UNM SANDOVAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, asserts a claim of discrimination in employment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Complaint for Employment Discrimination at 3, Doc. 1, filed March 20, 2025 (“Complaint”). The only factual allegations in the Complaint state “sexual harassment from a coworker” and “sexual harassment was reported to HR by coworker. HR representative” Complaint at 4-5.

United States Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez notified Plaintiff: The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Although a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, it must give just enough factual detail to provide fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Howl v. Alvarado, 783 Fed.Appx. 815, 818 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Warnick v. Cooley, 895 F.3d 746, 751 (10th Cir. 2018)) (quotation marks omitted); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o 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.”).

Order for Amended Complaint at 2-3, Doc. 5, filed March 21, 2025. Judge Martinez ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that sets forth sufficient facts to give Defendant fair notice of the grounds upon which Plaintiff’s claims rest and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. See Order for Amended Complaint at 3-4. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the April 11, 2025, deadline.

The Court dismisses this case because: (1) the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (11) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to Judge Martinez’ Order for Amended Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

A STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.