Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302

Background

Plaintiffs (Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (BBANM), and five state legislators) sued the New Mexico Supreme Court and two local state courts (and certain officials) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the 2017 New Mexico Rules of Criminal Procedure and local use of the Arnold Tool (a risk-assessment PSA) as violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and state law.
The complaint alleged the 2017 Rules effectively remove secured money bail as an option and allow imposition of liberty-restricting non-monetary conditions without offering non-excessive monetary bail; Collins alleges she was detained several days under the new regime.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and on immunity grounds (sovereign, judicial, legislative); they also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs sought to amend to add a First Amendment claim alleging retaliatory Rule 11 practice.
The district court dismissed most claims (finding BBANM and the legislators lacked standing; sovereign, judicial, and legislative immunities barred claims against the courts and officials), granted Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, and denied leave to amend as futile.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: BBANM and the legislator-plaintiffs lack standing; Collins has standing only for damages and retrospective declaratory relief but her claims are barred by immunity; Rule 11 sanctions were properly imposed; amendment to add a First Amendment claim was futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
BBANM standing to sue on behalf of criminal defendants (third-party/associational standing)	BBANM asserts associational and third-party standing to vindicate rights of potential customers denied bail	Defendants argued association and third-party standing doctrines do not permit BBANM to assert criminal defendants’ constitutional rights	Held: BBANM lacks standing; Kowalski-style third-party standing exception inapplicable
Legislator-plaintiffs’ standing to assert institutional injury (separation-of-powers/usurpation)	Legislators say Rulemaking by NM Supreme Court usurps legislative power and constitutes an institutional injury	Defendants said individual legislators cannot sue for an institutional legislative injury; Kerr controls	Held: Legislators lack standing; alleged injury is institutional and affects legislature as a whole (Kerr II)
Collins’s standing for prospective relief (mootness and risk of future harm)	Collins sought damages and injunctive/declaratory relief against future application of rules	Defendants argued Collins’s prospective claims are moot and she lacks a sufficient risk of future arrest/arraignment to support injunctive relief	Held: Collins has standing for damages and retrospective declaratory relief but prospective injunctive/declaratory relief is moot/speculative
Immunity defenses (sovereign, judicial, legislative)	Plaintiffs argued immunity doctrines did not bar their claims or were overcome	Defendants argued Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars suits against state courts and official-capacity claims; judicial immunity bars judges; legislative immunity bars justices promulgating rules	Held: Sovereign immunity bars suits against courts and official-capacity claims (Ex parte Young inapplicable for retrospective relief); judicial immunity bars individual-capacity claims vs. judges/administrators; legislative immunity bars suits vs. justices for rulemaking
Rule 11 sanctions and denial of amendment to add First Amendment claim	Plaintiffs contended claims were colorable and sanctions unjust; amendment necessary due to Defendants’ Rule 11 motion	Defendants argued pleadings lacked objectively reasonable basis on standing and immunity doctrines; Rule 11 sanctions appropriate; First Amendment does not protect frivolous filings	Held: Rule 11 sanctions were not an abuse of discretion given binding precedent and objectively unreasonable party additions; motion to amend to add First Amendment claim was futile

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing Article III standards)
Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (limits on third‑party standing for attorneys asserting indigent defendants’ rights)
Kerr v. Hickenlooper (Kerr II), 824 F.3d 1207 (legislator standing; institutional injury requirement)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (narrow exception to Eleventh Amendment for prospective relief)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state officials sued in their official capacities are treated as state and barred by Eleventh Amendment for damages)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial immunity is immunity from suit for acts within judicial role)
Bogan v. Scott‑Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (absolute legislative immunity for officials acting in legislative capacity)
Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (state courts/justices immune when promulgating rules of general application)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (central purpose of Rule 11 to deter baseless filings)
Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (Rule 11 imposes duty of reasonable inquiry before filing)