Andy Bourdon and Laura Porter v. City of Espanola, City of Santa Fe, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ANDY BOURDON and

LAURA PORTER,

Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:25-cv-01270-KK

CITY OF ESPANOLA,

CITY OF SANTA FE, et al.

Defendants.

ORDER FOR SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pro se Plaintiffs’ original Complaint includes 22 pages of allegations and asserts 12 “counts.” See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed December 19, 2025 (“Complaint”). Many of the allegations are vague, for example, they refer to Defendants collectively without identifying which of the 17 Defendants Plaintiffs are referring to and do not state when each Defendant’s actions occurred. The Complaint also contains unnecessary statements explaining legal standards.

The Court notified Plaintiffs that the Complaint does not give Defendants fair notice of the grounds upon which Plaintiffs are basing their claims. See Order for Amended Complaint, Doc. 6, filed February 19, 2026. The Court explained the allegations necessary to state a plausible claim and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. See Order to Show Cause at 2-4.

Plaintiffs filed an 18-page, 122-paragraph Amended Complaint asserting claims against 20 Defendants. See Doc. 7, filed March 10, 2026. Plaintiffs later also filed eight motions to supplement the record with facts regarding events that occurred after Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. See Doc’s 9-16, filed April 1-May 12, 2026; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (providing for service of supplemental pleadings setting out any events that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented).

The Amended Complaint does not remedy several of the deficiencies in the original Complaint that the Court identified in the Order to Amend Complaint and, consequently, does not give each Defendant fair notice of what claims each Plaintiff is asserting and the grounds upon which Plaintiffs are basing their claims.

The Court orders Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint must contain a section for each Defendant that: (i) explains what that Defendant did to each Plaintiff; (ii) states when that Defendant did it; (iii) describes how that Defendant’s actions harmed each Plaintiff; (iv) identifies the specific legal rights each Plaintiff believes that Defendant violated; and (v) identifies the claims each Plaintiff is asserting against that Defendant. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The second amended complaint must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See, for example, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all parties”); D.N.M.LR-Civ.10.1 (“Except for footnotes and quotations, the text of all documents must be double spaced”).

Because the Court is ordering Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions to supplement the record as moot.

IT IS ORDERED that: (i) Plaintiffs shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, file a second amended complaint. Failure to timely file a second amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. (ii) ~~ Plaintiffs’ motions to supplement the record, Doc’s 9-16, filed April 1-May 12, 2026, are DENIED as moot.

Clin ea

KIRTAN KHALSA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE