Mayer v. Bernalillo Cnty.
| Decision Date | 13 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 18-0666 JB\SCY,CIV 18-0666 JB\SCY |
| Parties | JENIKA MAYER, Plaintiff, v. BERNALILLO COUNTY; ERIC W. SCHULER, Individually and in his official capacity; THERESA BACA SANDOVAL, Individually and in her official capacity; JOHN OR JANE DOE BCSO SHERIFF OFFICERS, A, B, C, D, E and F; MARILYN JONES; GARY JONES; ROBERT LONG; STEPHANIE LONG, and NATHANIEL LONG, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Bernalillo County's Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 1-012, filed July 19, 2018 (Doc. 12)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on September 25, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Defendant Bernalillo County is a suable entity under New Mexico law, pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 4-46-1; (ii) whether N.M. Stat. Ann. § 4-46-1, along with rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, may limit the parties to a § 1983 claim, requiring that all § 1983 claims against Bernalillo County be brought against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo; and (iii) whether the Court should allow Mayer leave to amend the Complaint to assert claims against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo, when Mayer has not filed a Motion to Amend in compliance with the Local Rules. The Court concludes that: (i) under New Mexico law, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 4-46-1 requires that the county be sued in the name of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo; (ii) pursuant to rule 17 and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 4-46-1, § 1983 claims against Bernalillo County must be brought against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo; and (iii) the Court will allow Mayer leave to amend to assert claims against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss in part, dismissing Defendant Bernalillo County without prejudice, and grants Mayer leave until December 24, 2018, to amend her complaint to substitute as a defendant the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo.
The Court draws its facts from Mayer's Complaint for Negligence Per Se, Civil Conspiracy, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Violation of New Mexico Tort Claims Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ¶ 1, at 1, filed in state court April 11, 2018, filed in federal court July 12, 2018 (Doc. 1-1)("Complaint").1 Bernalillo County removed the case to federal court. See Notice of Removal, filed July 12, 2018 (Doc. 1)("Notice of Removal"). The Court accepts Mayer's factual allegations as true for the limited purpose of deciding the Motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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, Plaintiff Jenika Mayer is a resident of Bernalillo County, in the State of New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. The Joneses (Gary Jones and Stephanie Jones), and the Longs (Robert Long, Stephanie Long, and Nathaniel Long)("Jones and Long Defendants") owned neighboring property in the same subdivision and were litigants in a state suit, Mayer v. Smith, 2015-NMCA-060, 350 P.3d 1191, concerning an easement crossing Mayer's property. See Complaint ¶¶ 16-17, at 3. In Mayer v. Smith, Mayer "brought suit against another neighbor [-- Susan Smith --] to prevent the cutting and removal of trees within the easement [over her property]." 2015-NMCA-060, ¶ 36, 350 P.3d at 1194. "As the trees grew in the easement, Plaintiff used her fence to include them in her property, resulting in a nine-to-eleven-foot area becoming inaccessible to Intervenors [-- the Jones and Long Defendants]." 2015-NMCA-060, ¶ 36, 350 P.3d at 1194. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico concluded that Mayer was "required to remove her fence from the easement." 2015-NMCA-060, ¶ 36, 350 P.3d at 1200. On March 2, 2015, in Mayer v. Smith, 2015-NMCA-060, ¶ 36, 350 P.3d 1191, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion, regarding the trees that Mayer had planted in the easement over her property and requiring Mayer to remove the trees. See Complaint ¶ 19, at 3 (citing Mayer v. Smith, 2015-NMCA-060, ¶ 36, 350 P.3d at 1200). Mayer contends that one of the outcomes of the Court of Appeals of New Mexico's decision "was the fact that Ms. Mayer still had the right to present her evidence after the Jones and Long Defendants appealed an involuntary dismissal as provided for by Rule 1-041(B) NMRA." Complaint ¶ 20, at 3 (emphasis in original). Mayer contends that:
If a dismissal made under Rule 1-041(B) is reversed on appeal, the appellate court will remand a non-jury case to the district court for further proceedings, and the defendant (Ms. Mayer in that case) may then present any evidence she may have. (See Bogle v. Potter, 1961-NMSC-025, ¶ 19, 68 N.M. 239, 360 P.2d 650).
Mayer contends that the Jones and Long Defendants "could not abide the opinion from the Court of Appeals," Complaint ¶ 22, at 3, and that, before allowing Mayer to present any evidence, on October 13, 2015, the Jones and Long Defendants "knowingly filed an erroneous Completion of Briefing with the district court," informing the court that their Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment was "ripe for adjudication." Complaint ¶ 24, at 4.2 Mayer appealed the Altered and Amended Judgment. Complaint ¶ 26, at 4. Later in November, 2015, the Jones and Long Defendants entered Mayer's property "without notice," intending to cut the trees on the easement. Complaint ¶ 28, at 4. The Jones and Long Defendants "brought two deputies with them to prevent Ms. Mayer from interfering with those activities." Complaint ¶ 28, at 4. Mayer showed the deputies a copy of her appeal of the Altered and Amended Judgment, prompting the deputies to order the Jones and Long Defendants to leave, which they did. See Complaint ¶ 28, at 4.
Mayer contends that, sometime later, the Jones and Long Defendants communicated exparte with Eric Schuler, an Assistant Bernalillo County Attorney. See Complaint ¶ 29, at 5. On December 30, 2015, Mr. Schuler emailed Annette Regan,3 copying Mr. Schuler's supervisor, Theresa Baca Sandoval, and the Jones and Long Defendants' attorney, and informing Regan that, "if she got a call to keep the peace at 270 Skyland Blvd (Ms. Mayer's property), she should allow the people to cut down the trees." Complaint ¶¶ 30-31, at 5. Mr. Schuler did not send the email to Mayer or her attorney, and Mayer contends that the Jones and Long Defendants, Mr. Schuler, and Ms. Sandoval "conspired to keep this ex parte communication a secret from Ms. Mayer and her lawyer," Complaint ¶ 33, at 5; "Mr. Schuler had no duty to get involved and take sides in a civil matter," Complaint ¶ 34, at 5; "Mr. Schuler did not cite the correct statute in his ex parte email," Complaint ¶ 35, at 5; "Mr. Schuler did not bother to get all the facts before he made a legal conclusion," Complaint ¶ 36, at 5; "Mr. Schuler's legal conclusion was wrong," Complaint ¶ 37, at 5, and "Mr. Schuler did what the Jones and Long Defendants asked without any independent investigation on his part," Complaint ¶ 38, at 6. Mayer contends that Ms. Sandoval did not "effectively monitor Mr. Schuler." Complaint ¶ 39, at 6.
Mayer alleges that, on April 11, 2016, the Jones and Long Defendants came to her property and began to cut the trees within the easement, prompting her to call the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office ("BCSO"), which sent an armed sergeant and five deputies to her property. See Complaint ¶¶ 40-42, at 6. Upon the sergeant and deputies' arrival, they did not speak withMayer, but, acting on the email that Mr. Schuler sent to Regan in 2015, see Complaint ¶¶ 43-44, at 6, they ignored Mayer's pending appeal, and allowed the Jones and Long Defendants to "exercise the post-judgment self-help remedy of cutting down the trees," Complaint ¶ 50, at 7.
Mayer contends that: Complaint ¶ 45, at 6. Mayer alleges that the Jones and Long Defendants knew she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"),4 and that, as a direct consequence of their actions, she "suffered immediate and severe trauma." Complaint ¶¶ 46-47, at 6. Mayer alleges that she experienced "new and persistent PTSD symptoms" as a result of her trauma, which the Jones and Long Defendants caused, "including, but not limited to, depression, panic attacks, physical pain, mental anguish and grief that have not yet resolved." Complaint ¶ 48, at 7. Mayer contends that, on November 30, 2016, "the district court found that the Jones and Long Defendants had made an ex parte communication with the court when they filed their Completion of Briefing on October 13, 2015 and that the Alter [sic] and Amended Judgment was filed erroneously, andthe court vacated their judgment." Complaint ¶ 27, at 4.5
Bernalillo County removed the case to federal court on July 12, 2018. See Notice of Removal ¶ 1, at 1. In the Notice of Removal, Bernalillo County "exercises its right to remove this action from the Second Judicial Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, where the case is now pending," asserting that the Court has original jurisdiction as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Mayer's action, "upon information and belief, arises out of alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment [...
To continue reading
Request your trial