Almeida v. Branch

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO VANESSA ALMEIDA, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-00734-DHU-SCY FRANK BRANCH and CODY BOSWELL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pro se Plaintiff asserted Defendants, both of whom are New Mexico State Police Officers, “unreasonably disregarded an excessive risk to” the safety of Plaintiff’s 14-year-old daughter and failed to protect her daughter from physical assault. Complaint at 1, Doc. 1, filed August 4, 2025. There are no other factual allegations in the Complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiff of the following deficiencies in the Complaint: First, it appears Plaintiff is asserting claims on behalf of her minor daughter. Plaintiff may not assert claims pro se on behalf of her daughter because Plaintiff is not an attorney authorized to practice in this Court. See Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000) ("A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others"); Kanth v. Lubeck, 123 Fed.Appx. 921 , 923 n.1 (10th Cir. 2005) (stating “as a non-lawyer parent, appearing pro se, [plaintiff] may not represent his minor children in federal court”) (citing Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153 , 154 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding that “under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1654 [stating parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel], a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent acting as next friend if the parent is not represented by an attorney”)). Second, the Complaint does not contain allegations describing what Defendants did to Plaintiff or identify what claims Plaintiff is asserting against Defendants. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o 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.”) (emphasis in original). Order for Amended Complaint at 1-2, Doc. 4, filed August 6, 2025. Judge Yarbrough ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. See Order to Show Cause at 5. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to Judge Yarbrough’s Order to Show Cause by the August 27, 2025, deadline. The Court, therefore, dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff, who is not an attorney authorized to practice in this Court, cannot bring claims on behalf of her daughter and because the Complaint fails to state a claim on Plaintiff’s behalf. IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (} J □□□ Y— HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE