United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff
Anthony Brian Mallgren's: (i) Complaint, Doc. 1, filed
November 28, 2016 (“Complaint”); (ii) Fee Waiver
Request, Doc. 3, filed November 28, 2016; and (iii)
Electronic Filing Request, Doc. 4, filed November 28, 2016.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will: (i) DISMISS
Plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous; (ii) DISMISS this
case without prejudice; (iii) DENY Plaintiff's Fee Waiver
Request as moot; and (iv) DENY Plaintiff's Electronic
Filing Request as moot.
the third of four cases that Plaintiff has filed in this
Court in November and December, 2016. See Mallgren v.
Thomas, No. 16cv1256 JCH/KBM; Mallgren v. United
States, No. 16cv1285 JAP/KBM; Mallgren v. United
States, No. 16cv1351 KBM. In the first case, United
States District Judge Judith C. Herrera noted that Plaintiff
had previously filed 98 cases in federal courts since
September 2012, many of which were frivolous or meritless,
described how Plaintiff has failed to comply with Court rules
in her case, and informed Plaintiff that the District of New
Mexico has the third highest number of total filings per
judgeship in the federal district court system and,
consequently, has a strong interest in managing its docket
and minimizing the impact of frivolous or meritless actions
on its resources. See Doc. 14 at 2-3, Mallgren
v. Thomas, No. 16cv1256 JCH/KBM (December 7, 2016).
Judge Herrera then notified Plaintiff that failure to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District of
New Mexico's Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and orders
and other rules of the Court, may result in the imposition of
filing restrictions on Plaintiff.
Parker dismissed the complaint in the second case as
frivolous and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
See Doc. 6 at 2-4 in Mallgren v. United
States, No. 16cv1285 JAP/KBM (December 12, 2016).
Complaint in this case, which was filed before Judge Herrera
entered her Order, is also frivolous. Plaintiff's
Complaint states in its entirety:
at 2-3. The Complaint does not refer to the exhibit attached
to the Complaint which includes an email regarding
Plaintiff's CM/ECF account for this Court.
Court will dismiss the Complaint as frivolous because it does
not contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing
that Plaintiff is entitled to relief or a demand for the
relief sought, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and (3).
See Triplett v. Triplett, 166 Fed.Appx. 338, 339-340
(10th Cir. 2006) (Dismissal of an in forma pauperis
complaint as frivolous is not an abuse of discretion based on
a determination that the pro se litigant did not
state a viable legal claim and that the complaint consisted
of little more than unintelligible ramblings); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . .
is frivolous . . . [or] fails to state a claim”).
Complaint also does not contain “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction” as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). 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”). The Court will dismiss this case
without prejudice because it lacks jurisdiction to consider
Plaintiff's claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.,434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2006) ...