Collins v. Daniels

Citation916 F.3d 1302
Decision Date25 February 2019
Docket NumberNos. 17-2217,18-2045,s. 17-2217
Parties Darlene COLLINS ; Bail Bond Association of New Mexico; Richard Martinez; Bill Sharer; Craig Brandt; Carl Trujillo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Charles W. DANIELS ; Edward L. Chavez; Petra Jimenez Maez; Barbara J. Vigil ; Judith K. Nakamura; New Mexico Supreme Court; Nan Nash; The Second Judicial Court ; Henry A. Alainz; Robert L. Padilla; Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court; James Noel; Bernalillo County; Board of County Commissioners, County of Bernalillo, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

916 F.3d 1302

Darlene COLLINS ; Bail Bond Association of New Mexico; Richard Martinez; Bill Sharer; Craig Brandt; Carl Trujillo, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Charles W. DANIELS ; Edward L. Chavez; Petra Jimenez Maez; Barbara J. Vigil ; Judith K. Nakamura; New Mexico Supreme Court; Nan Nash; The Second Judicial Court ; Henry A. Alainz; Robert L. Padilla; Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court; James Noel; Bernalillo County; Board of County Commissioners, County of Bernalillo, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 17-2217
18-2045

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED February 25, 2019


Richard Westfall, Hale Westfall, Denver, Colorado (A. Blair Dunn and Dori E. Richards, Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the briefs), appearing for Appellants.

Ari Biernoff, Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico, appearing for Appellees Charles W. Daniels, Edward L. Chavez, Petra Jimenez Maez, Barbara J. Vigil, Judith K. Nakamura, the New Mexico Supreme Court, Nan Nash, the Second Judicial Court, Henry Alainz, Robert Padilla, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, and James Noel.

Brandon Huss, The New Mexico Association of Counties, Santa Fe, New Mexico, on the brief for Appellee County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo.

Before BRISCOE, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

This is a § 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality of New Mexico's system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico ("BBANM"), and five New Mexico state legislators (the "Legislator Plaintiffs") allege that New Mexico's system of bail violates the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as well as the procedural and substantive components of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 Plaintiffs further allege that the rules governing New Mexico's system of bail were promulgated by the New Mexico Supreme Court in violation of the New Mexico Constitution. Defendants-Appellees are the New Mexico Supreme Court and its justices; the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, its chief judge, and its court executive officer; and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, its chief judge, and its court executive officer.2

916 F.3d 1308

Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing, Defendants are immune from suit, and Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. Defendants also moved for Rule 11 sanctions on the basis that Plaintiffs' attorneys filed suit without adequately researching the viability of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs then moved for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim that Defendants' Rule 11 motion violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.

The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss because it found that BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lack standing, Defendants are immune from suit, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The district court also granted Defendants' motion for sanctions and denied Plaintiffs' motion to amend. Plaintiffs timely appealed.3 Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.

I

A. Legal Background

As of 2014, when bail hearings were held in New Mexico, judges commonly set the amount of any secured bail bond based "solely on the nature of [a defendant's] charged offense without regard to individual determinations of flight risk or continued danger to the community." State v. Brown , 338 P.3d 1276, 1292 (N.M. 2014). The New Mexico Supreme Court held that this practice was impermissible because "[n]either the [New Mexico] Constitution nor [New Mexico's] rules of criminal procedure permit[ted] a judge to base a pretrial release decision solely on the severity of the charged offense." Id. The Court explained that "[s]etting money bail based on the severity of the crime leads to either release or detention, determined by a defendant's wealth alone instead of being based on the factors relevant to a particular defendant's risk of nonappearance or reoffense in a particular case." Id.

In March 2016, the New Mexico legislature proposed amending the state constitution to change how the state administers bail. S.J. Res. 1, 52d Leg., 2d Sess. (N.M. 2016). The amendment was ratified by popular referendum in November 2016. The relevant provision now reads:

All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great and in situations in which bail is specifically prohibited by this section. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

Bail may be denied by a court of record pending trial for a defendant charged with a felony if the prosecuting authority requests a hearing and proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community. An appeal from an order denying bail shall be given preference over all other matters.

A person who is not detainable on grounds of dangerousness nor a flight risk in the absence of bond and is otherwise eligible for bail shall not be detained solely because of financial inability to post a money or property bond. A defendant who is neither a danger nor a flight risk and who has a financial inability to post a money or property bond may file a motion with the court requesting relief from the requirement to post bond. The court shall rule on the motion in an expedited manner.

N.M. Const. art. II, § 13.

In July 2017, the Supreme Court of New Mexico revised the state's Rules of Criminal

916 F.3d 1309

Procedure to implement the recent constitutional amendment (the "2017 Rules"). The relevant provisions state:

Pending trial, any defendant eligible for pretrial release under Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution, shall be ordered released pending trial on the defendant's personal recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount set by the court, unless the court makes written findings of particularized reasons why the release will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. The court may impose non-monetary conditions of release ..., but the court shall impose the least restrictive condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person or the community.

N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-401(B).

If the court makes findings of the reasons why release on personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond, in addition to any non-monetary conditions of release, will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required, the court may require a secured bond for the defendant's release.

N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-401(E).

The 2017 Rules were meant to "clarify that the amount of [a] secured bond must not be based on a bond schedule, i.e., a predetermined schedule of monetary amounts fixed according to the nature of the charge." N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-401 cmt. (referring to N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-401(E)(1)(d)). "Instead, [a] court must consider [each] individual defendant's financial resources and must set secured bond at the lowest amount that will reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court after the defendant is released." Id. (referring to N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-401(E)(1)(a)–(c)).

Depending on a defendant's custodial status, a "district court shall conduct a hearing ... and issue an order setting the conditions of release as soon as practicable, but in no event later than" three to five "days after the date of arrest." N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-401(A)(1). "The chief judge of [each] district court may [also] designate by written court order responsible persons to implement ... pretrial release procedures...." N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-401(N). Per these procedures, "[a] designee shall release a defendant from custody prior to the defendant's first appearance before a judge if the defendant," id. , (1) "has been arrested and detained for [most] ... misdemeanor[s]" and other "[m]inor offenses," (2) "qualifies for pretrial release based on a risk assessment and a pretrial release schedule approved by the Supreme Court," or (3) "qualifies for pretrial release under a local release on recognizance program that relies on individualized assessments of arrestees and has been approved by order of the Supreme Court," N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-408(B)–(D). When a defendant is released pursuant to Rule 5-408, he is "released on personal recognizance on [his] ... promise to appear and subject to ... standard conditions of release." N.M. R. Crim. P. Form 9-302.

B. Factual Background

Two additional events underlie Plaintiffs' claims. First, in late 2016, the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court—acting through their chief judges and court executive officers—signed a memorandum of understanding with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, allowing the courts to use the Arnold Tool to perform risk assessments of criminal defendants prior to their bail hearings. App. Vol. I at 29, 65–72. The Arnold Tool, formally known...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • Chilcoat v. San Juan Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 22 Julio 2022
    ...not be used to obtain a declaration that a state officer has violated a plaintiff's federal rights in the past." Collins v. Daniels , 916 F.3d 1302, 1316 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med. , 159 F.3d 487, 495 (10th Cir. 1998) ). Here, Ms. Chilcoat sought "[a] d......
  • Kane Cnty. v. United States, 18-4122
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 25 Junio 2019
    ...the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Collins v. Daniels , 916 F.3d 1302, 1312 (10th Cir. 2019).SUWA asserts its environmental concern is "a legally protectable interest" for purposes of Article III standing. San Juan C......
  • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18, 20-2018
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 26 Marzo 2021
    ..., 822 F.3d at 1165-66 (quotation omitted). A court must decide mootness as to "each form of relief sought." See Collins v. Daniels , 916 F.3d 1302, 1314 (10th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). A request for declaratory relief is moot when it fails to "seek[ ] more than a retrospective opinion......
  • Weise v. Colo. Springs, Civil Action No. 17-cv-02696-PAB-NYW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 30 Septiembre 2019
    ...witness immunity, they have not provided any basis for applying these doctrines in the context of this lawsuit. See Collins v. Daniels , 916 F.3d 1302, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019) ("The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...for writ of mandamus barred because state law claim rather than request for prospective relief under federal law), Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302, 1315-16 (10th Cir. 2019) (request for declaratory and injunctive relief barred because plaintiff only had standing to seek retrospective reli......
  • SUPPLEMENTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING.
    • United States
    • Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Vol. 22 No. 2, June 2022
    • 22 Junio 2022
    ...(238.) See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Seaboard R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985). (239.) See, e.g., Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302, 1314 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting that it "can raise issues of standing and mootness sua sponte because" of an "independent obligation to determine" th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT