278 F. Supp. 3d 1245
D.N.M.2017Background
- Plaintiff Martin Gallegos, an inmate, alleged he was remanded by a state court order to remain at Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (BCMDC) for methadone titration but was transferred days later to state custody and suffered severe withdrawal.
- Gallegos sued Bernalillo County, BCMDC, the New Mexico Corrections Department, and unnamed corrections officers, asserting § 1983 deliberate-indifference claims and state-law tort claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMTCA).
- Bernalillo County moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (and as to NMTCA notice implicating jurisdiction), attaching state-court orders; it argued quasi-judicial immunity, no Monell liability, no NMTCA waiver for the claims, and failure to satisfy the NMTCA 90-day notice requirement.
- Gallegos opposed, relying on deposition excerpts and affidavits to argue actual notice and sought leave to identify individual defendants for § 1983 claims.
- The district court (Browning, J.) (i) took judicial notice of the state-court orders (so did not convert the motion to summary judgment), (ii) held quasi-judicial immunity applies to individuals not counties, (iii) dismissed Monell-style § 1983 claims for lack of municipal policy/affirmative link, and (iv) found the NMTCA notice requirement unmet (no written notice to Bernalillo County and no sufficient actual notice), and dismissed the County from the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhibits outside the complaint convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into summary judgment | Gallegos argued consideration of depositions/evidence means the motion should be treated as for summary judgment | County argued attached state-court orders are public records/judicially noticeable and central | Court: did not convert; took judicial notice of state-court orders and treated motion as 12(b)(6) on those parts |
| Whether Bernalillo County enjoys quasi-judicial immunity for executing court orders | Gallegos did not press a strong contrary legal theory at briefing | County claimed absolute quasi-judicial immunity for executing facially valid orders | Court: quasi-judicial immunity protects individuals/officers, not the county entity; immunity does not apply to County |
| Whether County is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell/supervisory liability) | Gallegos sought to add named supervisors and argued individual actors caused violations | County argued § 1983 bars vicarious liability; no municipal policy or affirmative link alleged | Court: dismissed § 1983 claims against County—no Monell claim, no pleaded policy or affirmative link |
| Whether NMTCA notice requirement was satisfied | Gallegos said he showed orders to officers, his attorney contacted agency and sent notice to State Risk Management | County argued no written notice to county clerk within 90 days and no actual notice of likelihood of litigation | Court: plaintiff failed to present written notice to the County and did not prove actual notice that litigation was likely; lack of notice is jurisdictional—state tort claims against County dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards and that § 1983 disallows respondeat superior liability)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an unconstitutional policy or custom)
- Moss v. Kopp, 559 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2009) (quasi-judicial immunity for officials executing facially valid court orders and requirements for that doctrine)
- Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285 (10th Cir. 1989) (policy rationale for immunity of officials executing judicial orders)
- Dutton v. McKinley County Bd. of Comm’rs, 822 P.2d 1134 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (NMTCA actual-notice standard requires notice of likelihood of litigation)