Gallegos v. Bernalillo Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs

• Decision Date: 30 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. CIV 16–127 JB/WPL,CIV 16–127 JB/WPL
• Parties: Martin GALLEGOS, Plaintiff, v. BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; Bernalillo County Detention Center ; New Mexico Department of Corrections, and John Does 1 Through 5, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

278 F.Supp.3d 1245

Martin GALLEGOS, Plaintiff,

v.BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; Bernalillo County Detention Center ; New Mexico Department of Corrections, and John Does 1 Through 5, Defendants.

No. CIV 16–127 JB/WPL

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Signed September 30, 2017

Stephen F. Lawless, Grisham & Lawless, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Carlos M. Quiñones, Quiñones Law Firm, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendants Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners and Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center

Debra J. Moulton, Deborah D. Wells, Kennedy, Moulton & Wells P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant New Mexico Department of Corrections

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGETHIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners' ("Bernalillo County") Motion to Dismiss, filed January 6, 2017 (Doc. 45)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on June 2, 2017. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Defendant Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners' Motion under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be converted into one for summary judgment, because Bernalillo County attached documents to its Motion outside of the pleadings; (ii) whether Bernalillo County enjoys quasi-judicial immunity from damages, because of its reliance on court orders; (iii) whether Bernalillo County is liable for Plaintiff Martin Gallegos' federal constitutional claim of deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (iv) whether Gallegos met the notice requirement under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act ("NMTCA") by giving Bernalillo County either written or actual notice of his claims; and (v) whether there is a waiver of immunity under the NMTCA for claims against Bernalillo County. The Court concludes that: (i) Bernalillo County's Motion should not be converted into one for summary judgment, because its attached documents fit an exception to the rule that the Court may only consider the pleadings; (ii) Bernalillo County does not enjoy quasi-judicial immunity from damages, because that doctrine applies to people, not counties; (iii) Bernalillo County is not liable for Gallegos' federal constitutional claims, because Bernalillo County is not vicariously liable under § 1983 ; and (iv) Gallegos did not meet the NMTCA notice requirement, because Bernalillo County did not have written or actual notice of Gallegos' claims. Because the notice requirement is jurisdictional, the Court will not address whether there is a waiver of immunity. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court draws its facts from Gallegos' Amended Complaint, filed February 1, 2016, in Gallegos v. Bernalillo Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, No. CIV 15–6829 (Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico), filed in federal court February 22, 2016 (D.N.M. Doc. 1–2). While the Court does not adopt Gallegos' factual allegations, the Court nonetheless accepts them as true for the limited purpose of deciding the Motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (" Iqbal")(clarifying the "tenet that a court must accept as true all of the [factual] allegations contained in a complaint")(alteration added)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ); Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir. 2008) (concluding that, in the motion to dismiss posture, a court must "accept as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations").

With that understanding of the allegations, Gallegos is a prisoner at Roswell Correctional Facility in Chaves County, New Mexico. See Amended Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. On or about November 6, 2014, the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, issued an order remanding Gallegos to the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center's custody ("BCMDC"). See Amended Complaint ¶ 5, at 2. This order was to remain in effect for six weeks, while Gallegos participated in a methadone program at BCMDC "to decrease his level of dependence so that ... Gallegos would not incur life endangering withdrawals symptoms." Amended Complaint ¶ 5, at 2. (Gallegos subsequently refers to this order as a titration¹ order. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners Motion to Dismiss at 1, filed January 30, 2017 (Doc. 52)("Response")). Approximately six days after the state court remanded Gallegos to BCMDC's custody, he was transferred to Defendant New Mexico Department of Corrections. See Amended Complaint ¶ 6–7, at 2. BCMDC and the New Mexico Corrections Department ignored the remand order to BCMDC. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 6–7, at 2. Defendants John Does one through five are employees of either the New Mexico Corrections Department or BCMDC, ignored the remand order, and acted with "deliberate indifference" by doing so. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12, 15, 16, at 3. At the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility, Gallegos "suffered life threatening withdrawal symptoms for almost two (2) months." Amended Complaint ¶ 7, at 2.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Gallegos filed this lawsuit in state district court on August 27, 2015. See Complaint, Gallegos v. Bernalillo Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, No. CIV 15–06829, (Tort)(filed in Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico August 27, 2015), filed in federal court February 22, 2016 (Doc. 1–1). In the Complaint, Gallegos asserts claims against Bernalillo County, BCMDC, the New Mexico Corrections Department, and John Does 1 through 5, for a violation of § 41–4–12 of the NMTCA. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. Gallegos then filed the Amended Complaint, adding a federal claim. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1–19, at 1–4. In the Amended Complaint, Gallegos asserts claims against Bernalillo County, BCMDC, the New Mexico Corrections Department, and John Does 1 through 5, for (i) violations of NMTCA § 41–4–12, see Amended Complaint ¶¶ 8–17, at 2–4; and (ii) violations of Gallegos' rights guaranteed under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, see Amended Complaint ¶ 18, at 4. Gallegos seeks "compensatory damages in a yet undetermined amount jointly and severally against all Defendants," and attorney fees. Amended Complaint ¶ 20, at 4. Within thirty days of receipt of the Amended Complaint, Bernalillo County and BCMDC removed the lawsuit to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). See Notice of Removal at 1, filed February 22, 2016 (Doc. 1).

1. The Motion.

Bernalillo County moves the Court, pursuant to rule 12(b)(6), to dismiss Gallegos' claims against Bernalillo County. See Motion at 1. In the Motion, Bernalillo County argues that it enjoys "absolute quasi-judicial immunity for [its] reliance on a facially valid court order." Motion at 4. Bernalillo County asserts that " ‘official[s] charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct prescribed by that order.’ " Motion at 4 (quoting Turney v. O'Toole, 898 F.2d 1470, 1472 (10th Cir. 1990) (" Turney")). Bernalillo County explains that " ‘it is simply unfair to spare the judges [who have absolute judicial immunity and] who give orders while punishing the officers who obey them.’ " Motion at 4 (quoting Valdez v. City & Cty. of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1289 (10th Cir. 1989) (" Valdez")). Bernalillo County then explains that a state district court issued a series of orders that sentenced Gallegos to the New Mexico Corrections Department's custody. See Motion at 5–6. Bernalillo County attached these orders to its Motion. See Motion at 5–6. Bernalillo County then argues that it transferred Gallegos to the New Mexico Corrections Department "in accordance with the Orders." Motion at 6. Further, Bernalillo County argues, "[a]ll of these Orders were approved and signed by Plaintiff's court-appointed attorney(s)." Motion at 6.

Bernalillo County then argues that the state district court's orders were facially valid. See Motion at 6. Specifically, it asserts that, " ‘even assuming that an order is infirm as a matter of state law, it may be facially valid, as ‘facially valid’ does not mean ‘lawful,’ and erroneous orders can be valid.’ " Motion at 6 (quoting Turney, 898 F.2d at 1473 ). Bernalillo County contends that "there is no question that the Orders ... were in fact valid." Motion at 6. Bernalillo County then notes that " ‘[t]he proper procedure for a party who wishes to contest the legality of a court order enforcing a judgment is to appeal that order and the underlying judgment, not to sue the official responsible for its execution.’ " Motion at 7 (quoting Valdez, 878 F.2d at 1289–90 ). Bernalillo County asserts that Gallegos did not appeal the orders at issue, which "would have been the appropriate means of relief" rather than suing Bernalillo County. Motion at 7.

Bernalillo County next argues that "there is no vicarious liability for Plaintiff's constitutional claims against [Bernalillo County]." Motion at 7. Bernalillo County asserts that 42 U.S.C. § 1983" ‘rejects the tort principle of respondeat superior and does not subject [governmental agencies] to vicarious liability for the acts of their employees.’ " Motion at 7 (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–95, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) ). Specifically, Bernalillo County contends, " ‘[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead each government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.’ " Motion at 8 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). Accordingly, Bernalillo County concludes that the "Plaintiff cannot...