Melissa Mae Smith v. George Chandler, Pat Ralston, Paul Martin, Jodie...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MELISSA MAE SMITH,

Plaintiff, v. No. 1:26-cv-01615-SMD-SCY

GEORGE CHANDLER,

PAT RALSTON,

PAUL MARTIN,

JODIE YARBOROUGH and

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging that Defendants Chandler, Ralston and Martin assisted Plaintiff with a patent application and that Defendant Yarborough, who was employed by Plaintiff, obtained and used Plaintiff’s proprietary information without Plaintiff’s authorization. See Amended Complaint at 2-4, Doc. 8, filed June 25, 2026. Plaintiff asserted claims for “Unauthorized Use or Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information” and “Unjust Enrichment.” Amended Complaint at 3; see also Order for Amended Complaint, Doc. 7, filed June 10, 2026 (notifying Plaintiff the amended complaint must contain allegations supporting jurisdiction and clearly explaining what each Defendant did to Plaintiff).

The Court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction because the Amended Complaint failed to show that there is: (i) federal question jurisdiction because it does not identify any federal statutory or constitutional provision under which Plaintiff’s claims arise; or (ii) diversity jurisdiction because there are no allegations regarding the citizenship/residency of Defendants. See Order of Dismissal at 4, Doc. 10, filed July 2, 2026.

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. See Doc. 13, filed July 29, 2026 (“First Motion”). The Court denied Plaintiff's First Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis because Plaintiff did not identify "the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal." Order Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, Doc. 17, filed August 3, 2026 (quoting DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991)).

Plaintiff has since filed a second Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepayment of Costs or Fees which is now before the Court. See Doc. 20, filed August 11, 2026 (“Second Motion”). The header for each page of the Second Motion states “United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.” It appears Plaintiff either mistakenly filed the Second Motion in this Court instead of with the Tenth Circuit or Plaintiff filed the Second Motion seeking reconsideration of this Court’s denial of her First Motion.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s Second Motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. A little over a month after Plaintiff filed her Second Motion with this Court, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the Tenth Circuit. See Doc. 7, filed September 15, 2026, in No. 26-2128 (10th Cir.). If Plaintiff is asking this Court to reconsider its denial of Plaintiff’s First Motion, Plaintiff has not asserted any arguments warranting reconsideration. See Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 63 F.4th 881, 897 (10th Cir. 2023) (“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice”) (quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)); D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.3(a) (“A motion, response or reply must cite authority in support of the legal positions advanced”).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepayment of Costs or Fees, Doc. 20, filed August 11, 2026, is DENIED.

UNI V VY jo JUDGE