1998 -NMCA- 4, Chavez v. City of Albuquerque
Decision Date | 09 December 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 16941,16941 |
Citation | 1998 NMCA 4,124 N.M. 479,952 P.2d 474 |
Parties | , 1998 -NMCA- 4 Peter CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Arthur Blumenfeld, City of Albuquerque Personnel Board, Donald D. Young and David Campbell, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
¶1 Plaintiff Peter Chavez appeals the grant of summary judgment to the City of Albuquerque (the City) based on claim preclusion, commonly known as res judicata. We must determine the preclusive effect of Plaintiff's administrative grievance proceeding on his subsequent district court action. In so doing, we also consider whether the City's personnel board (personnel board) would have had authority to consider the district court claims had Plaintiff raised those claims during the administrative proceeding. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
¶2 The City terminated Plaintiff from his full-time position in the City's Solid Waste Management Department after he submitted to mandatory drug testing and tested positive for drugs. Plaintiff filed a grievance to appeal his termination to the personnel board, which upheld the hearing officer's recommended termination. Plaintiff did not pursue an appeal from the grievance proceeding to district court. See Merit System Ordinance (MSO), Albuquerque, N .M., Rev. Ordinances, ch. 3, art. 1, §§ 3-1-1 to -25 (1978 & Supp.1995); id. § 3-1-23(E)(5) ( ). Instead, Plaintiff filed a separate district court action for damages and declaratory relief based on breach of contract, denial of Plaintiff's state and federal constitutional rights (to privacy, freedom from unreasonable governmental search and seizure, and procedural and substantive due process of law), and violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), NMSA 1978, §§ 10-15-1 to -4 (1974) in the promulgation of the City's drug testing policy, the selection of the personnel hearing officer and members of the personnel board, and the adoption of the decision in this grievance proceeding.
¶3 The district court granted summary judgment to the City based on the law of claim preclusion. See Roth v. Thompson, 113 N.M. 331, 334, 825 P.2d 1241, 1244 (1992) ( ). The court reasoned that Plaintiff was bound by matters which were raised, or which could have been raised, during the grievance because he failed to seek judicial review of the personnel board's decision.
¶4 We review the court's application of the law to the facts to ascertain whether the district court correctly concluded that the court claims were barred. See Anaya v. City of Albuquerque, 1996 NMCA 092, p 5, 122 N.M. 326, 924 P.2d 735 (standard of review). Additionally, we consider as a separate question of law the authority of the personnel board to decide the claims that the district court concluded could have been raised during the grievance. Cf. Morningstar Water Users Ass'n v. New Mexico Pub. Util. Comm'n, 120 N.M. 579, 583, 904 P.2d 28, 32 (1995) ( ).
¶5 We need not reach the issue of claim preclusion if the personnel board did not have jurisdiction over the district court claims. See Ford v. New Mexico Dep't of Pub. Safety, 119 N.M. 405, 409-10, 891 P.2d 546, 550-51 (Ct.App.1994) ( ). Initially we note that the personnel board's jurisdiction over the contract claims is settled. See Zamora v. Village of Ruidoso Downs, 120 N.M. 778, 780-82, 907 P.2d 182, 184-86 (1995). We turn, therefore, to whether the personnel board had jurisdiction over the remaining OMA and constitutional claims.
¶6 The essential functions of a municipal personnel board are to establish rules and regulations governing the terms and conditions of municipal employment and to administer the merit system ordinance. See NMSA 1978, § 3-13-4(A)(1), (2) (1965). Cf. Howell v. Heim, 118 N.M. 500, 504, 882 P.2d 541, 545 (1994) ( ). According to MSO, § 3-1-5, the personnel board also serves in an advisory capacity in personnel administration.
¶7 Among its duties, the personnel board renders a decision "upon the appeal of classified employees of the city concerning certain grievances as provided in § 3-1-23." MSO, § 3-1-5(B). Plaintiff's grievance was a disciplinary action which the MSO characterizes as a Class I grievance. See MSO, § 3-1-23(D). Class I grievances are governed by procedures adopted by the personnel board, and are conducted by the personnel hearing officer who makes a recommendation to the personnel board. See MSO, § 3-1-23(E)(3). The personnel board renders the final decision in the process, see MSO, § 3-1-23(E)(4)(b), by exercising a limited number of options all directly related to the disciplinary action which is the subject of the grievance: accept or reverse the disciplinary action; modify the disciplinary action; or, remand the matter to the hearing officer for further hearing or for a more detailed report. MSO, § 3-1-23(E)(4)(a).
¶8 Class I grievance rights accord due process to those discharged public employees who have a constitutionally protected property interest in public employment. See Zamora, 120 N.M. at 781, 907 P.2d at 185. When such rights are invoked, the board serves as final arbiter of the City's employment action. "Grievances" are limited to "those matters which fall exclusively within the purview of this article or the implementation of the Personnel Rules and Regulations." MSO, § 3-1-23(A)(1). The personnel board's exercise of authority is contingent upon (1) a management action (2) that falls within the scope of a Class I grievance (3) concerning a classified employee who is subject to the MSO. See § 3-13-4(D) (personnel exemptions from MSO).
¶9 These MSO contingencies are irrelevant to the OMA and the constitutional claims because other law specifies that the district courts have jurisdiction over these claims. The OMA vests exclusive jurisdiction in the district court over OMA enforcement actions. See § 10-15-3(B). Here, Plaintiff alleged that the City violated the OMA when the City debated and promulgated the policy at issue and selected its personnel hearing officer. See § 10-15-1(A) to (J) ( ).
¶10 The district courts and federal courts share jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) (§ 1983 claims). See Carter v. City of Las Cruces, 1996 NMCA 047, p 5, 121 N.M. 580, 915 P.2d 336. Section 1983 actions provide a means to vindicate personal constitutional rights in state or federal court when those rights are violated by state action; their primary objective is to award damages or secure injunctive relief. See Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 139, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 2307, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988). To state a § 1983 claim, Plaintiff must establish that the City, or persons acting under color of law, acted to deprive him of rights, privileges, and/or immunities accruing to him under the United States Constitution. See Chapman v. Luna, 102 N.M. 768, 769, 701 P.2d 367, 368 (1985). Section 1983 claims are supplementary to state law claims and remedies based on the same conduct. See Wells v. County of Valencia, 98 N.M. 3, 7, 644 P.2d 517, 521 (1982).
¶11 Additionally, Plaintiff seeks damages for violation of rights under the New Mexico Constitution. Plaintiff may not seek damages from the City for violation of state constitutional rights unless immunity is waived under the Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 41-4-3 to -27 (1995). See Ford, 119 N.M. at 412, 891 P.2d at 553; see also § 41-4-3(B) ( ); § 41-4-3(C) ( ); § 41-4-3(F)(1) ( ); § 41-4-3(F)(3) ( ). Consequently, exclusive original jurisdiction lies in the district court. See § 41-4-18(A).
¶12 Because of the personnel board's limited statutory authority to adopt regulations and to administer the merit system ordinance and because of the broader explicit state and federal authority of district courts to entertain the OMA and constitutional claims, we conclude that the personnel board does not have jurisdiction to grant affirmative relief over the OMA and constitutional claims. See Lasley v. Baca, 95 N.M. 791, 794, 626 P.2d 1288, 1291 (1981) ( ).
¶13 Thus, Plaintiff must be permitted to split his claims between the grievance proceeding and the district court action even if the claims arose from the same disciplinary action. See Ford, 119 N.M. at 413, 891 P.2d at 554 ( ); Eberhardt v. Levasseur, 630 So.2d 844, 846 (La.Ct.App.1993) ( ).
¶14 The City argues that Plaintiff waived his right to his day in court when he failed to appeal from the grievance. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tafoya v. New Mexico
... ... , Urvashi Parkhani, Childress Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants Taylor Tots ... City Of Okla. City , 153 F. App'x 529, 534 n.4 (10th Cir. 2005) ... 1998) ("The Ex Parte Young doctrine is not actually an ... See Begay v. State , 1985-NMCA-117 10, 104 N.M. 483, 723 P.2d 252, 256 ("Consent to be ... the Tort Claims Act."); 8 517 F.Supp.3d 1282 Chavez v. City of Albuquerque , 1998-NMCA-004 8, 124 N.M. 479, ... ...
-
Parsons v. Velasquez
... ... , Resource and Business Advocates, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for the Plaintiff. Sean E. Garrett, ... Standard Operating Procedures , City of Albuquerque, ... Pena , 143 F.3d 1363 (10th Cir. 1998), they argue that J. Parsons consent takes this situation ... Saul Holdings LP , 194 F.3d at 1077. See also Chavez v. Kincaid , 15 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1119 (D.N.M. 1998) ... See Begay v. State , 1985-NMCA-117 10, 104 N.M. 483, 723 P.2d 252, 256 ("Consent to be ... ...
-
Ganley v. Jojola
... ... Eric JOJOLA, in his individual capacity, and City of Albuquerque, Defendants. No. CIV 17-0432 JB\SMV United ... City of Albuquerque , 2008-NMCA-085, 35, 144 N.M. 314, 187 P.3d 179, 186 ). The Defendants ... 2006) ; Chavez v. Perry , 142 F. App'x 325, 334 (10th Cir. 2005) ... Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 151 F.3d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New ... ...
-
O'Farrell v. Bd. of Comm'rs for the Cnty. of Bernalillo
... ... Day, individually; Kassandra Garcia, individually; City of Albuquerque; John Does 1-10; and Jane Does 1-10, ... City of Albuquerque , 2008-NMCA-085, 38, 144 N.M. 314, 187 P.3d 179, 186 ; 455 F.Supp.3d ... Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 151 F.3d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Monell , 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018 ). See ... waiver of immunity under the Tort Claims Act"); Chavez v. City of Albuquerque , 1998-NMCA-004, 11, 124 N.M. 479, ... ...