Diaz v. King, 687 F. App'x 709

Background

Carlos L. Diaz sued multiple participants in post-death probate and paternity proceedings (two state judges, a hearing officer, the purported mother’s attorney and his law office, the New Mexico Attorney General, and others) claiming constitutional and state-law violations arising from those proceedings.
Diaz sought damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New Mexico law; the district court dismissed all defendants for various reasons.
Diaz appealed, raising three principal challenges: (1) dismissal of judges and a hearing officer on judicial-immunity grounds; (2) quashing of service and dismissal of claims against Elias Barela and his law office for insufficient/untimely service; and (3) denial of Diaz’s motion to recuse the district judge.
The complaint admitted the judicial-defendants acted in their judicial capacities and did not allege they acted in a complete absence of jurisdiction or seek proper declaratory relief to overcome immunity.
Service attempts on Elias Barela included certified mail returned "refused unable to forward" and purported service on an unauthorized employee; the district court quashed service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and later dismissed for failure to re-serve within the allotted time.
Diaz’s recusal motion argued the district judge’s prior role as U.S. Attorney created bias in favor of the New Mexico Attorney General; the district court denied recusal and the Tenth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state judges and hearing officer are immune from damages and injunctive relief	Diaz contended the judges/hearing officer violated his constitutional rights and should not be immune	Judges/hearing officer asserted absolute judicial (and related) immunity for judicial acts not wholly beyond jurisdiction; injunctive relief under § 1983 not available absent declaratory decree	Court held judicial immunity applies to the judges and hearing officer; dismissal affirmed
Whether service on Elias Barela and his law office was sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4	Diaz argued he attempted service (certified mail; process server at office) which should be adequate	Defendants argued service did not meet Rule 4(e)/(h) or New Mexico service rules; recipient was unauthorized	Court held service was deficient, quashed service, and dismissal for failure to timely re-serve was not an abuse of discretion
Whether dismissal of claims against Barela and his office should be vacated for lack of good cause under Rule 4(m)	Diaz asserted the dismissal was erroneous (no substantive good-cause showing in record)	District court had given notice and opportunity to re-serve and Diaz did not act or show good cause	Court held dismissal reasonable under Rule 4(m) and affirmed
Whether district judge should have recused under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)	Diaz argued judge’s prior service as U.S. Attorney created bias favoring the New Mexico Attorney General	Judge and appellees argued prior employment and adverse rulings do not raise a reasonable question of impartiality absent factual support	Court held denial of recusal was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se briefs construed liberally)
Wasatch Equality v. Alta Ski Lifts Co., 820 F.3d 381 (10th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Stein v. Disciplinary Bd. of Sup. Ct. of N.M., 520 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2008) (judicial immunity standards)
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (immunity for officials performing adjudicatory functions)
Dahl v. Charles F. Dahl, M.D., P.C. Defined Benefit Pension Tr., 744 F.3d 623 (10th Cir. 2014) (immunity extends to those closely associated with judicial process)
Edwards v. Wiley, 374 P.2d 284 (N.M. 1962) (New Mexico recognition of judicial immunity)
Hunnicutt v. Sewell, 219 P.3d 529 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (extension of judicial immunity to related adjudicatory actors)
Champagne Metals v. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., 458 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2006) (appellate waiver for undeveloped arguments)
Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of service)
Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack, 844 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 4(m) dismissals)
United States v. Mendoza, 468 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for recusal denials)
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993) (recusal requires more than speculation of bias)