Herrera v. Garcia et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing granting 12 Defendant Steven Michael Martinez's First Motion to Dismiss Claims Made Against Him in His Official Capacity. (ccp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. 16-cv-01366 LF/WPL
FERNANDO “NANDO” GARCIA,
Individually and as Mayor of the Village of Springer,
PAUL MARES, Individually and as Chief of Police
of the Village of Springer, and
STEVEN MICHAEL MARTINEZ, Individually and
as agent of the New Mexico State Police,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STEVEN MICHAEL MARTINEZ’S FIRST
MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS MADE AGAINST HIM IN HIS OFFICIAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Steven Michael Martinez’s First
Motion to Dismiss Claims Made Against Him in His “Official” Capacity (Doc. 12). Plaintiff’s
response states that he does not oppose the motion. Doc. 15 at 1. The Court finds the motion
well-taken, and will GRANT it.
Plaintiff requests that, going forward, defendant provide him with a draft of any proposed
motion so he can decide whether he concurs in or opposes the proposed motion. Doc. 15 at 1.
As defendant points out, however, this is not required by the local rule. The local rule only
requires a movant to “determine whether a motion is opposed.” D.N.M. L.R-Civ. 7.1(a).
[T]he local rule gives no indication how specific the movant must be in describing
the motion to which it is requesting consent. On one end of the spectrum, the
movant can attach a completed and ready-to-file copy of the motion; on the other
end, it can describe only the relief sought, i.e., dismissal of Counts II and IV.
Intermediate steps on the spectrum include giving a short rationale for the relief
sought—e.g., “the motion will seek to dismiss Count II on limitations grounds
and Count IV for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”—or attaching an
unfinished draft or truncated version of the motion. The local rules’ only input on
[this] issue is that the request for consent be in “good faith.” D.N.M. LR-Civ.
State of New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Valley Meat Co., LLC, No. 14-cv-1100 JB/KBM,
Doc. 16 at 39 (D.N.M. May 20, 2015). The rule does not require defendant to provide
plaintiff with an unfiled draft copy of a motion in order to comply with D.N.M. L.R.-Civ.
7.1(a). The Court will not add that requirement.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Steven Michael Martinez’s First
Motion to Dismiss Claims Made Against Him in His “Official” Capacity (Doc. 12) is
United States 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?