Tafoya v. New Mexico

• Citation: 517 F.Supp.3d 1250
• Decision Date: 04 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. CIV 19-0675 JB/SCY,CIV 19-0675 JB/SCY
• Parties: Erika TAFOYA, as next of kin to Maliyah Jones, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. State of NEW MEXICO ; New Mexico Department of Human Services; Children, Youth & Families Department; Taylor Tots Daycare; Sandi Taylor, Individually, and Mary Taylor, Individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

517 F.Supp.3d 1250

Erika TAFOYA, as next of kin to Maliyah Jones, Deceased, Plaintiff,

v.State of NEW MEXICO ; New Mexico Department of Human Services; Children, Youth & Families Department; Taylor Tots Daycare; Sandi Taylor, Individually, and Mary Taylor, Individually, Defendants.

No. CIV 19-0675 JB/SCY

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed February 4, 2021

Troy J. Pradia, The Cox Pradia Law Firm, P.L.L.C, Houston, Texas and John Paul Valdez, Davie & Valdez, P.C., El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Stephen Shanor, Chelsea Rae Green, Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P., Roswell, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants State of New Mexico and Children, Youth and Families Department

Ronald J. Childress, Urvashi Parkhani, Childress Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants Taylor Tots Daycare, Sandi Taylor, and Mary Taylor

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the State of New Mexico, Children Youth & Families Department's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed July 17, 2020 (Doc. 21)("MTD"). The Court held a hearing on October 6, 2020. See Clerks’ Minutes, at 1, filed October 6, 2020 (Doc. 48). Defendants State of New Mexico and Children Youth & Families Department (the "State Defendants") request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Erika Tafoya's claims against them under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure. See MTD at 1. The primary issues are: (i) whether the State Defendants are immune from Tafoya's claims under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; (ii) whether the New Mexico Tort Claims Act ("NMTCA"), N.M.S.A. §§ 41-4-1 to -27, waives the State Defendants’ Eleventh Amendment immunity; and (iii) whether the Court should grant Tafoya's request to amend her First Amended Complaint for Wrongful Death, Personal Injury, Loss of Parental Consortium and Other Damages Under the New Mexico Wrongful Death Act and New Mexico Tort Claims Act and New Mexico Statutory and Common Law Pro Hac Vice, filed August 9, 2020 (Doc. 7)("First Amended Complaint"). The Court concludes that: (i) the State Defendants have Eleventh Amendment immunity and that Tafoya cannot sue the State Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because the State Defendants are not persons for purposes of § 1983 ; (ii) there is no waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity under the NMTCA, because the Defendants Sandi Taylor and Mary Taylor (collectively the "Taylors") are not public employees and there is no waiver of immunity for negligent supervision; and (iii) it would be futile to amend the First Amended Complaint, because the Court's Eleventh Amendment analysis would not change. Accordingly, the Court grants the MTD, and dismisses Tafoya's claims against the State Defendants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the First Amended Complaint. The Court accepts the factual allegations as true for the purposes of the MTD. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ; Sanders v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138, 1141 (10th Cir. 2012) (concluding that a court accepts "all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and grants all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in that party's favor"). The Court does not, however, accept as true the legal conclusions within the First Amended Complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ("[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.").

This case arises out of the death of child M.J, who passed away on July 25, 2017. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 5-8, at 3. Tafoya is M.J.’s mother. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 1, at 2. The Taylors operate Defendant Taylor Tots Daycare, which is located in Portales, New Mexico. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 6, 20 at 3, 6. The Taylors are both New Mexico residents.

See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21-22 at 6.

Defendant Children, Youth, and Families Department ("CYFD") is a State of New Mexico agency. First Amended Complaint ¶ 19, at 5. See N.M.S.A. §§ 9-2a-1 to -24. The State of New Mexico has charged CYFD with the " ‘administ[ration] of all laws and the exercise of all functions formerly administered and exercised by the youth authority, as well as administering certain functions related to children, youth and families that were formerly administered by other departments or agencies of the state.’ " First Amended Complaint ¶ 19, at 5 (quoting N.M.S.A. § 9-2a-2(A) ). The State of New Mexico has charged CYFD with developing " ‘state policies and plans for services to children, youth, and families,’ " and " ‘advoca[ting] for services for children, youth and families within the State of New Mexico.’ " First Amended Complaint ¶ 19, at 5-6 (quoting N.M.S.A. §§ 9-2a-2(B), (C) ).

Before July 25, 2017, CYFD informed the Taylors that they were not permitted to transport children by car. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 9, at 3. See also id. ¶ 11, at 10. CYFD did not monitor whether the Taylors transported children by car. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 9, at 3. CYFD did not monitor whether the Taylors obtained necessary permission slips from parents for field trips. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 10, at 3. On one occasion, CYFD investigated a complaint and found that nine out of nine children did not have the required permission slips to attend a field trip. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 10, at 3-4. CYFD "leaves it up to" daycare centers to inform CYFD if the daycare has made "any changes in vehicles or if new vehicles are purchased." First Amended Complaint ¶ 11, at 4. Before July 25, 2017, CYFD did not inform parents that Taylor Tots Daycare is not allowed to transport children by vehicle. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 12, at 4.

On July 25, 2017, M.J. was attending daycare at Taylor Tots Daycare. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 6, at 3. That day, the Taylors drove twelve minor children, including M.J., to a park. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 7, at 3. Later, the Taylors drove back to Taylor Tots Daycare, and, upon returning to Taylor Tots Daycare, the Taylors did not do a headcount of the children. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 6-7, at 3. At approximately 12:45 p.m., the Taylors left M.J. in a vehicle. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 6, at 3. The vehicle was "scorching hot." First Amended Complaint ¶ 6, at 3.

At approximately 3:25 p.m., Sandi Taylor went back to the vehicle to retrieve paperwork. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 8, at 3. The Taylors then discovered M.J. in the vehicle. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 8, at 3. M.J. was taken to a hospital, but she was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 8, at 3.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2020, Tafoya, as Wrongful Death Personal Representative and as next of kin to M.J., decedent, filed the Complaint for Wrongful Death, Personal Injury, Loss of Parental Consortium and Other Damages Under the New Mexico Wrongful Death Act and New Mexico Tort Claims Act and New Mexico Statutory and Common Law Pro Hac Vice, filed July 22, 2020 (Doc. 1)("Complaint"). On August 9, 2020, Tafoya filed the First Amended Complaint, alleging four causes of action. See First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 23-47, 1-11. Tafoya alleges (i) violation of substantive due process for the Defendants’ failure to keep children reasonably safe from harm; (ii) negligence; (iii) negligent hiring and retention; and (iv) loss of parental consortium. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 23-47, at 6-11

1. The MTD.

The State Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 16, 2020. See MTD at 1. The State Defendants argue that they should be dismissed under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure, because the causes the of actions against them fail as a matter of law. See MTD at 1-2. The State Defendants argue that (i) the CYFD is an "arm of the state" and it is, therefore, immune from federal law claims under the Eleventh Amendment; (ii) CYFD is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; and (iii) CYFD is immune from Plaintiff's state law claims under the NMTCA, because no waiver of immunity exists. See MTD at 1-2.

The State Defendants contend that under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, a "complaint must have enough factual allegations, taken as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " MTD at 3 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). The State Defendants maintain that " ‘mere "labels and conclusions," and "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" will not suffice; a plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to support each claim.’ " MTD at 3 (quoting Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 )).

The State Defendants argue that Tafoya's federal law claims fail under the Eleventh Amendment. See MTD at 4. The Eleventh Amendment provides: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. The State Defendants maintain that the Eleventh Amendment makes a state immune from suit from its own citizens or citizens of another state without the state's consent. See MTD at 4 (citing Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1192 (D.N.M. 2013) (Browning, J.); Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 109 L.Ed.2d 264 (1990) ). The State Defendants contend that state agencies and state officials are also immune as " ‘an arm of the state.’ " MTD at 4 (quoting Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch, 951...