State of N.M. ex rel. Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, No. 84-1516

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore BARRETT, DOYLE and McKAY; McKAY
Citation768 F.2d 1207
PartiesSTATE 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 NumberNo. 84-1516
Decision Date29 July 1985

Page 1207

768 F.2d 1207
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.
No. 84-1516.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
July 29, 1985.

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
8 practice notes
  • Brown v. Reardon, Nos. 83-2484
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 19 Agosto 1985
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • 24 Octubre 2013
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 1 Julio 1986
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 13 Marzo 1991
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Brown v. Reardon, Nos. 83-2484
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 19 Agosto 1985
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • 24 Octubre 2013
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 1 Julio 1986
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 13 Marzo 1991
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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