State of N.M. ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, No. 84-1516
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before BARRETT, DOYLE and McKAY; McKAY |
| Citation | 768 F.2d 1207 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., Rose CANDELARIA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Billy Candelaria, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, and County of Bernalillo, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1516 |
| Decision Date | 29 July 1985 |
Page 1207
Representative of the Estate of Billy Candelaria,
deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District,
and County of Bernalillo, Defendants-Appellees.
Tenth Circuit.
Page 1208
Chris Lucero, Jr., Albuquerque, N.M. (John B. Leyba, Albuquerque, N.M., with him on brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Mark S. Jaffe, Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellee, City of Albuquerque.
Paul L. Civerolo, Albuquerque, N.M. (Carl J. Butkus, Albuquerque, N.M., with him on brief) of Civerolo, Hansen & Wolf, P.A., Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellee, Bernalillo County.
Ray Shollenbarger, Jr., Albuquerque, N.M. filed a brief for defendant-appellee, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist.
Before BARRETT, DOYLE and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
This case arises out of the death of a young Mexican youth who drowned in an inadequately maintained syphon culvert. Plaintiff brought suit against the City of Albuquerque, the County of Bernalillo and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District alleging that Billy Candelaria's death violated his civil rights. Specifically, the complaint alleged causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1983 and 1985.
The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that it failed to allege intentional discrimination as is required under all three of the above statutes, * and failed to allege conspiracy as is required by section 1985.
The district court correctly found that, to be successful under sections 1981 and 1983, a plaintiff must allege and prove
Page 1209
that the damages he suffered were the result of purposeful discrimination. Disparate impact that does not raise a presumption of discriminatory purpose is insufficient to sustain a cause of action under sections 1981 and 1983. The district court also concluded that under section 1985 the plaintiff was required to show class-based animus. While it is true that in order to reach private conspiracies under section 1985 a plaintiff must plead and prove class-based animus, Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), it is not firmly established that, where the section 1985 cause of action is asserted against state actors, intent to discriminate against an identifiable class must be proved....To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Reardon, Nos. 83-2484
...animus is required under section 1985(3) when state action is involved has never been decided. See State of New Mexico v. Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, at 1209 (10th Cir.1985). It is therefore inappropriate for the court to decide this important and farreaching issue without some analysis of ......
-
Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 13–2240–SAC.
...purpose. Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1162 (10th Cir.1991). See New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, 1209 (10th Cir.1985). Plaintiff's disparate impact claim about the selection and composition of the grievance board raises no such presumptio......
-
Roybal v. City of Albuquerque, CV No. 85-1616 HB.
...prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, 1209 (10th Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Federal Civil Rights Claims Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 a......
-
Drake v. City of Fort Collins, No. 90-1026
...are "insufficient to sustain a cause of action under sections 1981 and 1983." New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, 1209 (10th Cir.1985). Because plaintiff's Title VII disparate treatment and disparate impact claims failed, so would his claims under Secs. 1981......
-
Brown v. Reardon, Nos. 83-2484
...animus is required under section 1985(3) when state action is involved has never been decided. See State of New Mexico v. Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, at 1209 (10th Cir.1985). It is therefore inappropriate for the court to decide this important and farreaching issue without some analysis of ......
-
Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 13–2240–SAC.
...purpose. Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1162 (10th Cir.1991). See New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, 1209 (10th Cir.1985). Plaintiff's disparate impact claim about the selection and composition of the grievance board raises no such presumptio......
-
Roybal v. City of Albuquerque, CV No. 85-1616 HB.
...prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, 1209 (10th Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Federal Civil Rights Claims Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 a......
-
Drake v. City of Fort Collins, No. 90-1026
...are "insufficient to sustain a cause of action under sections 1981 and 1983." New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 1207, 1209 (10th Cir.1985). Because plaintiff's Title VII disparate treatment and disparate impact claims failed, so would his claims under Secs. 1981......