Carter V Abeita
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JENNIFER ROBIN CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:25-cv-00638-KRS1
JONATHAN ABEITA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOTICE REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT
Pro se Plaintiff Jennifer Carter (“Plaintiff”) filed a Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, on July 3, 2025 (“Complaint”). (Doc. 1). This case arises from, among other
things, Plaintiff being charged with traffic violations. See (Doc. 3) (Aff.). Plaintiff then filed an
Amended Complaint and three additional Affidavits. See (Docs. 8-10) (Affs.), (Doc. 11) (First Am.
Compl.). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint and three more Affidavits. See
(Docs. 12-14) (Affs.), (Doc. 15) (Second Am. Compl.).2
I. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
As discussed below, Plaintiff must become familiar with and comply with the Federal and
Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has violated Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by filing the Second Amended Complaint, (doc. 15), without first obtaining the Court’s
1 The Clerk’s Office assigned the undersigned to this case for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which allows the
Court to authorize commencement of a case without prepayment of the filing fee. See (Doc. 5). Plaintiff has paid the
filing fee. See (Doc. 6). The undersigned has reviewed the Complaint pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to manage
its docket. See Secs. & Exch. Comm’n v. Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., 824 Fed.Appx. 550, 553 (10th Cir. 2020) (“a district
court has the inherent power ‘to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases’“) (quoting Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1891-92 (2016)).
2 Hereinafter, the First Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint will be referred to collectively as the
“Amended Complaints.”
leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . In
all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or
the court’s leave”). Plaintiff has also filed seven (7) affidavits. See (Docs. 3, 8-10, 12-14). It is not
clear that those affidavits are warranted by any Rules of Civil Procedure or any other reason at this
point in the case. Every document that Plaintiff files must state in the first paragraph the reason
Plaintiff is filing that document and cite authority supporting the filing of the document. See
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1 (“A motion must be in writing and state with particularity the grounds and the
relief sought.”); D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.3 (“A motion, response or reply must cite authority in support
of the legal positions advanced.”); see also D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.2 (“[t]he title of a document must
clearly identify its substance . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“[a] party must state its claims or
defenses in numbered paragraphs . . . .”).
The Court has identified some deficiencies in the Complaint and Amended Complaints,
described below, and orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss claims based
on those deficiencies. See Lowrey v. Sandoval Cnty. Children Youth & Fams. Dep’t, No. 23-2035,
2023 WL 4560223, at *2 (10th Cir. July 17, 2023) (“Given a referral for non-dispositive pretrial
matters, a magistrate judge may point out deficiencies in the complaint [and] order a litigant to
show cause”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). If Plaintiff asserts any
claims should not be dismissed, Plaintiff must file a third amended complaint.
First, as the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff bears the burden
of alleging facts that support jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir.
2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists
absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”); Evitt v. Durland, 243 F.3d
388, at *2 (10th Cir. 2000) (“even if the parties do not raise the question themselves, it is our duty
to address the apparent lack of jurisdiction sua sponte”) (quoting Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
859 F.2d 842, 843 (10th Cir. 1988)).
Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has jurisdiction over her claims against the State of
New Mexico, Belen Magistrate Court, Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, Los Lunas
Magistrate Court, and Valencia County District Court (collectively, “Court Defendants”) which
are arms of the State of New Mexico.
Generally, states and their agencies are protected from suit by sovereign immunity,
as guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment. “The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh
Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in
federal court.” Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363, 121 S. Ct.
955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). However, there are three exceptions to the Eleventh
Amendment’s guarantee of sovereign immunity to states:
First, a state may consent to suit in federal court. Second, Congress
may abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity by appropriate
legislation when it acts under Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Finally, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct.
441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), a plaintiff may bring suit against
individual state officers acting in their official capacities if the
complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and the
plaintiff seeks prospective relief.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal
citations omitted and altered).
Levy v. Kansas Dep’t. of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 789 F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir. 2015); Turner v.
Nat’l Council of State Bds. of Nursing, Inc., 561 Fed.Appx. 661, 665 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[Eleventh
Amendment] immunity extends to arms of the state”) (citing Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197,
1205 (10th Cir. 2013). There are no factual allegations showing that any of the three exceptions to
the Eleventh Amendment’s guarantee of sovereign immunity to states apply to Plaintiff’s claims
against the State of New Mexico and the Court Defendants.
Second, Plaintiff has also not shown that the Court has jurisdiction over her claims against
the Pueblo of Isleta and its officials.
“Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign
authority over their members and territories.” Fletcher v. United States, 116 F.3d
1315, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[S]uits against
tribes are barred in the absence of an unequivocally expressed waiver by the tribe
or abrogation by Congress.” Id. “Tribal sovereign immunity is immunity from suit
in federal court.” Id. at 1326. And a tribe’s immunity extends to tribal officials sued
in their official capacities. Id. at 1324.
Clark v. Haaland, No. 22-2141, 2024 WL 4763759, at *6 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 2024). Plaintiff has
not cited any waiver of immunity by the Pueblo of Isleta or any express authorization by Congress
that would allow this Court to entertain Plaintiff’s claims against the Pueblo of Isleta and its
officials.
Third, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaints do not properly identify defendants in this case nor
do they demonstrate whether Plaintiff has plausible claims against each defendant. Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, (doc. 11), states it is the “same as original filing,” adds a handful of
defendants, and in support of her claims states “see Affidavits.”3 (Doc. 11) at 1-2. Similarly,
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint identifies new defendants and cites an “Affidavit” or
“Affidavit of Truth” in support of her claims.4 See (Doc. 15). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaints are
insufficient because they do not state claims against Defendants named in the original Complaint.5
See (Doc. 1) at 1-5. “An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the
original complaint of no legal effect.” Franklin v. Kansas Dept. of Corrs., 160 Fed.Appx. 730, 734
3 The newly identified defendants in the First Amended Complaint are: Pueblo of Isleta Government, Valencia County
Government, Bernalillo County Government, City of Albuquerque Government, Village of Los Lunas Government,
City of Rio Rancho Government, Governing Body of the State of New Mexico, Victor Rodriguez, Timothy Zuni,
Arnold Chavez, and Jeffrey Tenorio. See (Doc. 11) at 1, 3-4.
4 In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff lists the following defendants: Heather Jordan, Michelle Lujan Grisham,
G. Bryan Thomas, Rishi Sikka, and Sheriff John Allen. See (Doc. 15) at 1-3.
5 The following defendants are named in the original Complaint, (doc. 1), but not identified in the Amended
Complaints, (docs. 11, 15): Jonathan Abeita, Sharon Mitamura, Joseph Lucero, Virgil Lucero, Howard Shayla, AJ
Baxter (Police Officer), Briana Tower, “Officer Tenorio,” Orlena Hooee, A.J. Baxter (Animal Control Officer), Belen
Magistrate Court, Bern Co. Metro Court, Los Lunas Magistrate Court, Albuquerque City Council, Bosque Farms P.D.,
and Valencia County District Court. See (Doc. 1) at 1-5.
(10th Cir. 2005) (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991)). Also, Plaintiff’s
reference to the seven (7) Affidavits does not remedy the lack of factual allegations in the Amended
Complaints. A complaint must “allege facts from which we may reasonably infer Defendant’s
liability” Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide L.L.C., 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021). When
determining whether a plaintiff has stated a plausible claim, the Court reviews the factual
allegations in the complaint. See Howl v. Alvarado, 783 Fed.Appx. 815, 817-18 (10th Cir. 2019)
(“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if the complaint, viewed in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, lacks enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”)
(emphasis added) (quoting United States ex rel. Reed v. KeyPoint Gov’t Solutions, 923 F.3d 729,
764 (10th Cir. 2019)). Furthermore, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
defendants admit or deny the allegations asserted against them in a complaint. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b). Defendants are not required to address various affidavits.
Fourth, the Second Amended Complaint adds G. Bryant Thomas (“Defendant Thomas”) as
a defendant and indicates Defendant Thomas resides in Danville, Illinois. The Complaint does not
contain factual allegations showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over nonresident
Defendant Thomas. See Dental Dynamics, L.L.C. v. Jolly Dental Grp., L.L.C., 946 F.3d 1223, 1228
(10th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff bears burden of establishing personal jurisdiction).
The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss some or all of
her claims for the reasons stated above. If Plaintiff asserts the Court should not dismiss those
claims, Plaintiff must file a third amended complaint titled, “Third Amended Complaint,” and
comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.2 (“The title
of a document must clearly identify its substance”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its
claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs”). Plaintiff is reminded that “to state a claim in federal
court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when [each] defendant did
it; how [each] defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes [each] defendant violated.”). Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty.
Justice Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added).
II. NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT
Generally, pro se litigants are held to the same standards of professional
responsibility as trained attorneys. It is a pro se litigant’s responsibility to become
familiar with and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (the “Local
Rules”).
Guide for Pro Se Litigants at 4, United States District Court, District of New Mexico (October
2022). The Local Rules, the Guide for Pro Se Litigants and a link to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available on the Court’s website: https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/representing-
yourself-pro-se.
Plaintiff has an obligation to prosecute this case and comply with Court Orders, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules. Failure to do so interferes with the judicial process
and may result in monetary and non-monetary sanctions including filing restrictions and dismissal
of this case. 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)).
The Court also reminds Plaintiff of her obligation to serve Defendants. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served
within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who
makes service”). Failure to timely serve Defendants may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“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”).
III. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 11
The Court further reminds Plaintiff of her obligations pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se
status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.”). Rule 11(b) provides:
Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written
motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating
it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s
knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law
or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law
or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 may subject Plaintiff to
sanctions, including monetary penalties and nonmonetary directives. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was filed in violation of Rule 15(a). The Court, thus, has
authority to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Further, the Second Amended Complaint
contains deficiencies that potentially warrant dismissal of some or all claims. Plaintiff is thus
hereby ordered to show cause why the Court should not dismiss some or all of her claims.
Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a third amended complaint in compliance with the Federal and
Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order,
either: (1) show cause why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for the reasons stated
above; or (11) file a third amended complaint. Failure to timely show cause or file a third amended
compliant may result in dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~ Eesti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE