Stein v. New Mexico & Chief Justice Barbara J. Vigil
| Decision Date | 29 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-cv-00776 WJ-KBM,15-cv-00776 WJ-KBM |
| Parties | STUART L. STEIN, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO and CHIEF JUSTICE BARBARA J. VIGIL, JUSTICES PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, EDWARD L. CHAVEZ, and CHARLES W. DANIELS, of the NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim, filed March 15, 2016 (Doc. 27); and Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed December 10, 2015 (Doc. 20). Having reviewed the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants' motion is well-taken and, therefore, is GRANTED.2
In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Stuart Stein ("Stein" or "Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, seeks a declaration that certain statutory provisions and a Supreme Court rule requiring the sealing of state guardianship and conservatorship files be altered so that they are open to public inspection and not considered confidential records as required under current state law. Stein asserts that he has a right to such relief under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
As a matter of state law and public policy, New Mexico affords public access to court records and proceedings, but also establishes specific statutory exceptions to such access. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 32A-5-8 (); NMSA 1978, § 27-7-29 (); NMSA 1978, § 45-5-303(I) (); and NMSA 1978, § 45-4-407(M) (). Stein challenges the constitutionality of these latter two statutory provisions. One of these provisions, §45-5-303(I), pertains to guardianship proceedings and provides that:
Section 45-5-407(M), the other challenged statutory provision, applies to conservatorship proceedings and includes similar limitations:
Both §45-5-303(I) and §45-5-407(M) are part of the Uniform Probate Code ("UPC"), which New Mexico has adopted.3 As Defendants observe, the statutory protections for guardianship and conservatorship proceedings that Stein challenges here are not unique to New Mexico. At least eighteen states, including New Mexico, have adopted the UPC. See Doc. 26 at 11-12 . States that have not adopted the UPC have accomplished the same objective by enacting statutes which provide for the confidential treatment of guardianship and conservatorship case files.4
Consistent with state law and policy, the New Mexico Supreme Court has embraced a presumption of public access to court records. Specifically, "[c]ourt records are subject to public access unless sealed by order of the court or otherwise protected from disclosure . . . ." Rule 1-079(A) NMRA. At the same time, Rule 1-079(C) does except from public access a limited number of categories of proceedings. The two categories at issue here are (1) "proceedings commenced for the appointment of a person to serve as guardian for an alleged incapacitated person," which is addressed in Rule 1-079(C)(7); and (2) "proceedings commenced for the appointment of a conservator," which is addressed in Rule 1-079(C)(8). The limitations on public access set forth in Rule 1-079(C)(7) and (8), however, are expressly subject to the disclosure requirements of §45-5-303(I) NMSA () and §45-5-407(M) NMSA (appointment of conservator), respectively, which the Court has described above. In addition to enumerating certain categories of cases which are presumptively confidential, Rule 1-079 also provides a mechanism by which any person may move to unseal any court record, as well as criteria for courts to consider in determining whether to grant motions to unseal. See Rule 1-079(I)(1) & (2).
Stein claims that the restrictions on public access pertaining to guardianship and conservatorship files and proceedings contained in NMSA §§45-5-303(I), 45-5-407(M) violate his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Compl., ¶20. He also attacks two provisions in Rule 1-079, Rule 1-079(A) and (J). Rule 1-079(A) provides that:
[n]o person or entity shall knowingly file a court record that discloses material obtained from another court record that is sealed, conditionally under seal, or subject to a pending motion to seal under the provisions of this rule.
Rule 1-079(J) states that:
[a]ny person or entity who knowingly discloses any material obtained from a court record sealed or lodged pursuant to [the Rule] may be held in contempt of court or subject to other sanctions as the court deems appropriate.
Stein appears to challenge Rule 1-079(A) under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, Compl., ¶29 and challenges Rule 1-079(J) as violations of his First andFourteenth Amendment rights with arguments that are similar to his arguments concerning the New Mexico statutes at issue here, NMSA §§45-5-303(I) and 45-4-407(M). Compl., ¶20. Stein states that his purpose in bringing this lawsuit is "to show the abuse suffered by wards and their families under the current system and to seek changes to assure fairness for himself and his family should he be subject to a guardianship or conservatorship in the future." Compl., ¶7. He states that he has "seen activities in court on [guardianship and conservatorship matters]5 where judges, attorneys, appointed guardians and conservators have acted against the best interests of the ward and his/her family and for their own best pecuniary or other interests and to cover up their own wrongful actions." Compl., ¶6.
Defendants seek dismissal on several grounds: (1) that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because a case or controversy does not exist; (2) that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit; and (3) that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kennedy v. Lubar, 274 F.3d 1293, 1301-02 (10th Cir. 2001). Because the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited, "there is a presumption against jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof." Marcus v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, 170 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 104 (1998) (). Jurisdiction is a threshold question that a federal court must address before reaching the merits, "even if the merits question is moreeasily resolved and the party prevailing on the merits would be the same as the party that would prevail if jurisdiction were denied." Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). Dismissal is mandatory once the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over particular claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (); see also Full Life Hospice, LLC v. Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1016 (10th Cir. 2013) ().
The absence of a justiciable case or controversy deprives a district court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Golfland Entm't Ctrs., Inc. v. Peak Inv., Inc., 119 F.3d 852, 856 (10th Cir. 1997) (); New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales, 64 F.3d 1495, 1498-99 (10th Cir. 1995) (). The question of ripeness, like other challenges to a court's subject matter jurisdiction, is treated as a motion under Rule 12(b)(1).
The Tenth Circuit has held that motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction "generally take one of two forms: (1) a facial attack on the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations as to subject-matter jurisdiction; or (2) a challenge to the actual facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based." Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th...
To continue reading
Request your trial