Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mallgren v. Thomas

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

March 1, 2017

ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, Plaintiff,
v.
SANDRA KAY THOMAS, JEFFREY BRIAN MALLGREN, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Anthony Brian Mallgren's Response, Doc. 15, filed December 12, 2016, and on his Time Extension Motion, Doc. 17, filed February 14, 2017. For the reasons stated below, the Court will DENY the Time Extension Motion and DISMISS this case without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from entry of this Order to show cause why the Court should not impose filing restrictions. If Plaintiff does not file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause, the proposed filing restrictions shall take effect fourteen (14) days from the date of this order and will apply to any matter filed after that time.

         Dismissal of This Case

On December 7, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice stating:
The Complaint 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”).

Doc. 14 at 5-6. The Court granted Plaintiff 21 days to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff filed a response which states in its entirety:
Responsive Memorandum Opinion, 7 Kislev 5777, XVIcvNM1256 #14:
1. Notice, tailored restrictions, acknowledged.
2. In forma pauperis, irrelevant.
3. Complaint, charge, inaccurate.
4. Complaint, allegation, United States, unhealthy custody incentive administration.
5. Complaint, jurisdiction, United States defendant.
6. Records, succinct references.
7. Filing, efficient intuitive ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.