Strege v. Gmail, No. 2:2023cv00816 - Document 20 (D.N.M. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning. GRANTING 19 MOTION to Dismiss, and DENYING 16 MOTION for Clarification. (fs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Strege v. Gmail Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ADAM STREGE, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 23-0816 JB/GBW GMAIL-GOOGLE; NEWFOLD DIGITAL, 80 Website Hosting Companies; SPAM TITAN, Titanhq.com; MICROSOFT CORPORATION; LEXISNEXIS; PEOPLE ON TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION TIMES A TRILLION PLANETS; GOD LOVES US; GOD HATES US AND GOD LOVES COMPLETELY; AMAZON.COM ECOMMERCE COMPANY; NIDEC CORPORATION KATO ENGINEERING; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS SPECTRUM INTERNET; CRAY COMPUTER HEWLETT PACKARD and FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CHAIR LINA M. KHAN, in her individual and Official Capacity, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, filed November 6, 2023 (Doc. 16)(“Clarification Motion”); and (ii) the Motion to Dismiss, filed December 26, 2023 (Doc. 19)(“Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff Adam Strege is proceeding pro se. The Clarification Motion states in its entirety the following: “Motion for Clarification if Second Amended Complaint already filled in Docket Entry 12 so Adam not allowed to mail another Compliant would-be 3rd Amended complaint? IT IS ORDERED that: Strege’s second amended complaint is due within fourteen days of this Memorandum Opinion and Order’s entry (Document Dockets.Justia.com 15).” Clarification Motion at 1. Strege later submits, as a letter to the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, the following statement, which reads in its entirety: “Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit Adam Strege because the Las Cruces Police are harassing me every time I go outside.” Motion to Dismiss at 1. The Court construes the Motion to Dismiss as a request for voluntary dismissal under rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)(“A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”). Rule 41(a)(2) provides that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Court grants Strege’s request in the Motion to Dismiss under rule 41(a)(2) and dismisses the case without prejudice. The Court also denies the Motion for Clarification. IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, filed November 6, 2023 (Doc. 16), is denied; (ii) the Motion to Dismiss, filed December 26, 2023 (Doc. 19), is granted; and (iii) and the Court will enter a separate Final Judgment. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Parties: Adam Strege Las Cruces, New Mexico Plaintiff pro se -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
