Insley Evans, Sr. v. Texas Office of the Attorney General and Ronson Hall

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO INSLEY EVANS, SR., Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-00945-SMD-KK TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and RONSON HALL, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” See Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed September 29, 2025. Where the form Complaint prompts plaintiffs to provide facts supporting their claims, Plaintiff wrote “See Attached Exhibits.” There are no exhibits attached to the Complaint.

United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa notified Plaintiff: (i) The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because there are no factual allegations in the Complaint describing what each Defendant did to Plaintiff; (ii) It does not appear that the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the Texas Office of the Attorney General due to the State of Texas’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; and (iii) It appears the District of New Mexico is not the proper venue for this action because there are no allegations showing that the actions of Defendant Texas Office of Attorney General and Defendant Ronson giving rise to this action occurred in the District of New Mexico.

See Order to Show Cause at 2-4, Doc. 5, filed October 2, 2025. Judge Khalsa ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case and to file an amended complaint. See Order to Show Cause at 7 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely show cause and file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not show cause or file an amended complaint by the October 23, 2025, deadline.

The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and Plaintiff has not complied with Judge Khalsa’s Order to file an amended complaint. 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.