Gustavo Gardenia Amaro v. Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO GUSTAVO GARDENIA AMARO, Plaintiff, vs. Civ. No. 25-512 KG/JFR DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THIS MATTER is before the Court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the Plaintiff’s Pro Se Complaint. Doc. 1.

On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint seeking “an order to compel Defendant to issue a bona fide determination on my pending Form I-918 and/or Form(s) I-918A and their related Form(s) I-765 for work authorization.” Doc. 1 at 1.

On June 4, 2025, the Court entered a Notice to Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, of his obligations to prosecute his case, abide by the federal and local rules of civil procedure, and to comply with his obligations pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 4.

On September 3, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause ordering Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss his case for his failure to timely serve Defendant.

Doc. 7. On September 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Proof of Service. Doc. 8. On September 19, 2025, the Court entered a Second Order to Show Cause. Doc. 9. Therein, the Court detailed the requirements for serving an agency of the United States and explained the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof of Service. Id. The Court then ordered Plaintiff to either show cause within fourteen (14) days that he properly effected service or provide the Court with a written explanation as to why he believes service was properly completed. Id. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely show cause may result in dismissal of his case without prejudice. Id. Rule 12(b)(5) authorizes the Court to dismiss a complaint for “insufficient service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Although no Defendant has moved to dismiss (or entered an appearance in this litigation), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to effect timely service: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court— on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Pro se litigants are allowed more latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in service of process and pleadings. Martinez-Jones v. Dulce Indep. Schs., No. 07-cv- 00703, 2008 WL 2229457, at *6 (D.N.M. Mar. 14, 2008) (quoting Moore v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.D.C. 1993)). Courts “should at least supply minimal notice of the consequences of not complying with procedural rules” to pro se litigants. Id. (internal quotations omitted). This assistance does not, however, “constitute a license for a plaintiff filing pro se to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.; see also Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[T]his court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).

Here, Magistrate Judge Robbenhaar put Plaintiff on notice that Defendant had not been served. Doc. 7. Judge Robbenhaar then put Plaintiff on notice that there were defects in service of process that required correction. Doc. 9. Judge Robbenhaar also put Plaintiff on notice that his failure to demonstrate within fourteen (14) days that he had properly effected service on Defendant and/or respond to the Second Order to Show Cause could result in dismissal of his case without prejudice. To date, Plaintiff has taken no steps to correct the deficiencies in service of process and has not responded to the Second Order to Show Cause.1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for insufficient service of process.

/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE • Please note that this document has been electronically filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this document.

Electronically filed documents can be found on the Court’s PACER public access system.

1 Plaintiff’s response was due within fourteen days, October 3, 2025. However, three additional days were added to accommodate service by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3) and 6(d).