James Aubrey Parker

The case involved a plaintiff diagnosed with electromagnetic sensitivity who sought a writ of mandamus to force the City of Santa Fe to enforce its land development code and halt 3G broadcasts from cell towers whose radio frequency emissions allegedly exacerbated his condition and violated the ADA. The court granted the city's motion to dismiss for failure to state a viable claim. It reasoned that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts local regulation of such emissions on environmental grounds or to protect individuals with disabilities under the ADA. The court further found no equal protection or due process violation because disabled persons are not a suspect class and the federal preemption scheme has a rational basis.

federal powercivil rightsenvironmenthealthcare

This case involved a motion to suppress evidence obtained after a traffic stop on Interstate 40 in New Mexico, where an officer observed the defendant's vehicle touch and drive on the solid stripe dividing the right lane from the shoulder. The defendant argued that such contact did not violate NMSA 1978, § 66-7-317, which requires driving “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane,” and that the subsequent consent to search was invalid. The court interpreted the statute to mean that the “lane” excludes the dividing lines and stripes, establishing a bright-line rule that touching those markers constitutes a violation and provides reasonable suspicion for a stop. It further held that the stop was not impermissibly extended and that the defendant's oral and written consent to search was valid and independent of any pat-down. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to suppress.

criminal lawprocedure

The plaintiffs, grand jury targets in custody, sued the district attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that providing less than four days' notice of their right to testify before the grand jury violated their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by failing to follow NMSA 1978, § 31-6-11(C). The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the complaint alleged only a state-law violation and did not state a plausible federal claim. The court examined whether the statute created a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, reviewing case law requiring substantive limitations on official discretion and explicitly mandatory language, and considered whether terms like "shall" necessarily impose such duties.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe's challenge to New Mexico's imposition of five taxes on oil and gas extraction and related equipment on the tribe's unallotted reservation lands located within the state. The tribe claimed the taxes violated federal common law, the Supremacy Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the state's Enabling Act disclaimer of taxing jurisdiction over Indian lands. After a bench trial with extensive findings on the reservation's treaty history, boundaries, trust status, absence of residents or state services, and economic activities limited to grazing and resource extraction, the court analyzed precedents such as Merrion, Cotton Petroleum, and Bracker balancing to determine the legal incidence and permissibility of the state taxes.

taxesfederal powerproperty

In Bales v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, a non-Native American plaintiff filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against a corporation wholly owned by the Chickasaw Nation, asserting claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and New Mexico common law. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit. The court granted the motion, holding that the tribal corporation, chartered under 25 U.S.C. § 503, enjoys the Chickasaw Nation's sovereign immunity, which had not been waived in its charter for these claims and had not been abrogated by Congress with respect to Title VII or the ADEA.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The EEOC sued Wal-Mart under Title VII, alleging that the company retaliated against employee Ramona Kay Bradford by refusing to hire her adult children, Robin and John Bradford, after she filed a discrimination charge in 2004. Wal-Mart moved to dismiss the claims on behalf of all three individuals. The court granted the motion as to Robin and John Bradford, finding they had not engaged in any protected activity themselves and thus could not establish a prima facie retaliation claim. The court denied the motion as to Ramona Kay Bradford, holding that she could pursue a claim that the failure to hire her children constituted an adverse action against her as an employee in retaliation for her protected activity.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case stems from a 2005 fatal car crash on Interstate 25 in New Mexico caused by an intoxicated driver who had been served alcohol, leading the victims' family to sue the driver's estate, employer, alcohol providers, and U.S. Airways under New Mexico's Dram Shop Act and liquor control laws for negligence and related claims. U.S. Airways removed the case from state court to federal court, asserting that federal aviation regulations created a substantial federal issue conferring jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the state-law claims did not necessarily raise a substantial and disputed federal question, that any federal interest was insufficient to support jurisdiction, and that allowing removal would disrupt the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities as outlined in Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering. The decision emphasized that the claims turned on application of state standards without requiring resolution of contested federal issues.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved a motion by plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred from July through September 2006 in post-judgment proceedings related to a consent decree in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court granted plaintiffs' motion in full, awarding $91,540.08 including taxes, while allowing defendants to amend their opposition but denying their request to impose guidelines for future fee determinations. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs' counsel's activities constituted reasonable monitoring of the consent decree rather than prosecutorial actions, making them compensable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988(b) and 12205 for prevailing parties. The court found the requested hourly rates and expenses reasonable after reviewing the evidence and objections. Defendants had argued that the activities were not compensable and sought stricter guidelines, but these positions were rejected.

civil rightsprocedure

In Chavez v. Qwest, Inc., the plaintiff, a long-term employee terminated in November 2004 after repeated denials of short-term disability benefits tied to a workplace chemical exposure that worsened her eye condition, sued her former employer alleging ERISA violations through discrimination, interference with benefits, retaliation, and fiduciary breach, plus wrongful termination under New Mexico public policy for failure to accommodate a serious medical condition. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the employer's specific intent to interfere with ERISA rights under the applicable burden-shifting framework, and that the state-law claim could not proceed independently without compliance with the NMHRA grievance procedures.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Weinstein v. United States Air Force, plaintiffs including Academy graduates and family members alleged that the Air Force's policies and practices at the U.S. Air Force Academy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment through evangelical Christian proselytizing, coercion into prayers, and discrimination against non-evangelical cadets. The court did not address whether any constitutional violations occurred. Instead, it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the United States Air Force and lacked standing to pursue claims against defendant Michael Wynne, while also denying plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add another plaintiff.

religious libertycivil rights

This case involved a defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements in a criminal prosecution after a U.S. Border Patrol agent stopped his vehicle on a back road in New Mexico and seized marijuana. The defendant argued the stop and arrest were illegal because they lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. After a hearing, the court denied the motion, concluding the agent had reasonable articulable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances, based on factors such as the vehicle's recent crossing from Mexico, its circuitous route avoiding an open checkpoint, the driver's rigid posture and failure to acknowledge the agent, and the truck appearing to ride low. The court applied precedents requiring consideration of all facts together rather than isolating each one.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

In United States v. Valenzuela, the defendant moved to suppress statements made to border patrol agents after her November 2002 arrest, arguing that the stop and arrest lacked probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment. The court held a hearing and found that Valenzuela was arrested when handcuffed and voluntarily accompanied agents to the station, but concluded after post-hearing briefing that the agents lacked probable cause at that point. The core reasoning was that while the vehicles shared Arizona plates and traveled near each other for about 25 miles on a common route north from the border, this was insufficient evidence of tandem travel in a smuggling operation to meet the probable cause standard, especially compared to cases with stronger links like informants or direct observations. The court therefore granted the motion and ordered suppression of any post-arrest statements.

criminal lawprocedureimmigration

The case involves the UDV church and its members, who sought a preliminary injunction claiming that the federal government's exemption for the Native American Church's ceremonial use of peyote under the Controlled Substances Act violates Equal Protection principles by not extending a similar exemption to the UDV's use of hoasca tea containing DMT. The court denied the motion by Native American Church organizations to file an amicus brief and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on the Equal Protection claim. The court reasoned that the peyote exemption is based on Congress's trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian tribes, reflecting a political rather than racial classification as supported by cases like Morton v. Mancari, and distinguished precedents like Rice v. Cayetano and Morrison v. Garraghty as inapplicable to this federal trust doctrine context.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

This case concerns a wrongful death claim arising from an Amtrak train striking and killing tribal member Roxanne Crystal Jirón on a railroad bridge and right-of-way owned by defendant BNSF within the Isleta Pueblo. Plaintiffs, who are Isleta Pueblo members, filed a parallel action in Isleta Tribal Court, prompting BNSF to seek injunctive relief in federal court. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction barring further tribal court litigation based on lack of tribal jurisdiction and now converts it to a permanent injunction while denying plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. The decision rests on the Montana v. United States framework, as applied in Strate v. A-1 Contractors, under which tribes generally lack civil authority over nonmembers' conduct on alienated non-Indian land such as the congressionally granted right-of-way, with neither of the two exceptions applying and abstention therefore inappropriate. The right-of-way deed and relevant precedents, including Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Red Wolf, confirmed that the tribal court had no jurisdiction.

federal powerprocedurepropertytorts & liability

The case concerned enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect the Rio Grande silvery minnow from jeopardy due to Bureau of Reclamation water operations in the Rio Grande basin during severe drought conditions. The court ordered the Bureau to maintain minimum flows of 50 cfs at certain diversion dams, release water from Heron Reservoir if needed to meet those flows, compensate any contract holders whose water rights were reduced, keep non-flow elements of prior reasonable and prudent alternatives in place, reinitiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and comply with the June 29, 2001 Biological Opinion flow requirements starting in 2003 unless a new opinion with a valid alternative was issued. The core reasoning was that the ESA requires federal agencies to give endangered species the highest priority without exception, that only the Endangered Species Committee (God Squad) may grant exemptions after balancing public and species interests, and that neither the Bureau nor other authorized parties had sought such an exemption, so the court could not itself authorize jeopardy or balance competing water needs.

environmentpropertyfederal power

This case involved environmental organizations challenging a final Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of water operations by the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers on the endangered Rio Grande Silvery Minnow and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs alleged inadequate consultation on discretionary agency actions, jeopardy to the species, failure to use the best available scientific data, and improper issuance of an incidental take statement. The court, reviewing the matter under the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary-and-capricious standard as an appellate body over final agency action, affirmed the Biological Opinion after examining the administrative record and arguments. It concluded that the opinion and its reasonable and prudent alternative satisfied the ESA, with any future exceedance of take limits requiring reinitiation of consultation.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned the U.S. Forest Service's decision to authorize the McGaffey Timber Sale in New Mexico's Cibola National Forest under the 1985 Forest Plan. Environmental plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, National Forest Management Act, and related regulations, alleging that the agency failed to monitor populations of designated management indicator species and instead relied solely on habitat analysis when approving the project via an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reverse the decision, holding that the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious because the 1982 regulations in effect required actual population data collection for the selected species rather than habitat monitoring alone. The court found that the Forest Service had not complied with its own plan obligations or the governing rules when it approved the timber sale without the required monitoring.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned the resentencing of Ruben Renteria, Sr. after his conviction for perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 for giving false testimony at a suppression hearing in an earlier drug conspiracy prosecution (No. CR 92-486JC) in which he was ultimately acquitted. Renteria had been sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, which he had fully served along with part of his supervised release term, but the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of circumstances at the time of resentencing. The district court addressed a motion for downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, considered credit for prior custody time including 324 days of pretrial detention from the acquitted case, and imposed an adjusted term of 60 months with appropriate credits. The court's reasoning emphasized basic principles of justice and fairness in applying the sentencing guidelines to the record facts without reliance on extraneous comparisons.

criminal lawprocedure

In Campos v. Brooksbank, plaintiffs alleged that a debt collection attorney violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New Mexico Unfair Practices Act by filing misleading affidavits to obtain a default judgment and by noticing a deposition solely to identify assets for garnishment after the judgment was set aside. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the FDCPA claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that the UPA claims were barred because attorneys' litigation conduct is exempt from that statute. The court denied the motion, holding that the specific acts challenged in the complaint all occurred within the limitations period and that the UPA does not exempt attorneys when their conduct is alleged to involve misrepresentations or abusive practices not expressly permitted by regulatory law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Minnesota resident and his construction company challenging New Mexico's statutory 5% bidding preference for state highway contracts awarded to resident contractors, defined as those with a majority of shares owned by New Mexico citizens. The plaintiffs argued the preference violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution when applied to deny them contracts despite being the low bidder. The court ruled for the defendants on the Equal Protection claim, finding the preference served a legitimate purpose under rational basis review, but ruled for the individual plaintiff on the Privileges and Immunities claim because the residency-based burden on the right to pursue a livelihood lacked substantial justification and was not narrowly tailored. The corporate plaintiff was not granted relief under that clause.

business & regulatorycivil rights