Arellano v. New Mexico Department of Health et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting 87 Motion to Clarify - the Court has remanded any and all of Plaintiff's state law claims, asserted against either or both defendants, to the First Judicial District Court. (am)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CIV 16-1325 KBM/LF
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
and THE NEW MEXICO STATE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant New Mexico Department of
Health’s Motion for Clarification, filed on August 30, 2017 (Doc. 87). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), the parties have consented to me serving as
the presiding judge and entering final judgment. See Docs. 5-9. Having considered the
record, submissions of counsel, and relevant law, the Court makes the following
The Court set out this matter’s complicated procedural history in its
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 23, 2017. See Doc. 15 at 1-7. Relevant
to the Motion at hand, the Court restates the following: Plaintiff’s former employer, the
New Mexico Department of Health (DOH), terminated Plaintiff in August 2010. See
Doc. 10-1 at 9. After some procedural complications (see Doc. 15 at 1-7), Plaintiff filed a
“Request for Hearing and Motion for Entry of Default/Waiver Against the State
The Court has considered the Motion and the Response and is able to resolve the Motion in
the absence of a reply brief.
Personnel Board and the Department of Health” with the New Mexico State Personnel
Board (SPB) on July 8, 2011. See Doc. 1-D at 17. The SPB entered its Final Decision
on April 27, 2012, affirming Plaintiff’s dismissal. Doc. 1-D at 12-13.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal under Rule 74 and Motion for Certification to the
Court of Appeals on May 17, 2012. Doc. 3-1. Plaintiff named both the DOH and the SPB
as Appellees in the case caption. See id. at 1. Plaintiff included two counts in her
appeal: first, she sought reversal of the SPB’s decision upholding her termination;
second, she asked the court for a declaratory judgment finding that the SPB and/or the
DOH “waived, denied, or defaulted on [Plaintiff’s] appeal of her termination by their
failure to schedule [her] hearing within a reasonable time.” Id. at 4-5. Apparently
intending to dismiss Plaintiff’s Appeal in its entirety, the First Judicial District Court
affirmed the SPB’s decision to terminate Plaintiff and also found that “[t]he procedural
irregularities alleged by [Plaintiff] do not constitute waiver or default.” Doc. 10 at 4; see
also Doc. 10-6.
Plaintiff appealed this decision, along with a prior decision out of the Fourth
Judicial District Court, which dismissed SPB from the case. See Arellano v. N.M. Dep’t
of Health, 2016 WL 4942708, at *1-2 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016). Finding that both
orders were appealable and noting a typographical error in the First Judicial District
Court’s order, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed both orders and remanded
the case to the First Judicial District Court for further proceedings. Id. at *2. This
decision effectively reinstated Count II. Id. at *1; see also Doc. 3 at 3 (noting a state
court judge “dismissed Count II” and the New Mexico Court of Appeals “reinstated
On remand, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to Count II
on September 5, 2016. Doc. 1-B. The district court entered an order on November 1,
2016, finding that “Count II is a claim against the [SPB] only[,]” and the SPB “is not
currently a party in this matter.” Doc. 1-C at 1. The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to join
the SPB as a party, and it deferred Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment until the
SPB received a summons and responded to Plaintiff’s motion. Id. at 1-2. After Plaintiff
served the SPB, counsel for the SPB removed the lawsuit to this Court on December 5,
2016. See Docs. 1 ¶ 5; 3 at 1.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this Court. Doc. 33 (Am. Compl.) ¶ 1.2
Plaintiff mentions state law in two different paragraphs: (1) Plaintiff asserts that she
brought her “claims under [sic] Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, under 42 U.S.C. §1983, pursuant to
Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution and state law as it relates to
Declaratory Judgements, §44-6-1 et seq.” (see id. ¶ 1); (2) with respect to Count III,
Plaintiff asserts that the “SPB failed to conduct Plaintiff’s post-termination hearing within
a meaningful time . . . under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution” (see
id. ¶ 35). Of significance to this motion to clarify, the Amended Complaint expressly
noted that it “does not withdraw or amend or dismiss any of her claims against the New
Mexico Department of Health made in her cause nos. D-101-CV-2011-03710 or D-412CV-2012-00238.” Am. Compl. ¶ 6.
While the state court found that Plaintiff’s original Count II was against the SPB only (see
Doc. 1-C at 1), it appears Plaintiff may have attempted to assert the Declaratory Judgment claim
in Count II in the Amended Complaint against both Defendants. See Am. Compl. ¶ 32. Counts
III and IV are against the SPB alone. See id. ¶¶ 34-62.
In its Memorandum Opinion and Order filed August 28, 2017, the Court
expressly dismissed all federal claims. It found that “the federal due process claims fail
to state a viable federal cause of action because neither the SPB nor the DOH are
‘persons’ amenable to suit under section 1983.” Doc. 86 at 4. It nevertheless appeared
to the Court that Plaintiff had attempted to assert a claim under both the federal and
state constitutions in Count III of her Amended Complaint. Am. Compl. ¶ 33. Because
“[n]either party addressed Plaintiff’s claim under the New Mexico Constitution,” the
Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a state claim and instead
remanded that claim to the state court for further proceedings. Id. at 6-7. That is the
“remaining state claim” the Court referenced in its Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff also seeks clarification and asserts that “by only remanding only [sic]
some of the State law claims, the Court is putting Plaintiff in the position of appealing
some State law claims to the Federal Court of Appeals and others to the New Mexico
Court of Appeals when both appeals should economically and logically go to the same
appellate court.” Doc. 88 at 2. To the extent the Court’s August 28, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order was unclear, the Court dismissed only the federal claims and
remanded any and all of Plaintiff’s state law claims, asserted against either or both
defendants, to the First Judicial District Court. The Court retains no jurisdiction over any
state law claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presiding by Consent
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?