Matt Garcia v. Rowan Wilson, Michael Rosenthal, Vanessa Fang and Kevin...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MATT GARCIA,

Plaintiff, v. No. 1:26-cv-02351-KWR-LF ROWAN WILSON,

MICHAEL ROSENTHAL,

VANESSA FANG and

KEVIN MCCLANAHAN,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, filed July 20, 2026, and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form), Doc. 2, filed July 20, 2026 (“Short Form Application”). The only allegations in the Complaint state: “Defendants have undisclosed interests. The court should order them to disclose.” 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 July 21, 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 August 11, 2026, deadline.

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 August 11, 2026, deadline.

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.

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 July 20, 2026, is DENIED.

____/S/ KEA W. RIGGS____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE