108 F. Supp. 3d 1030
D.N.M.2015Background
- Peña, a prisoner at NMWCF, sues Vallejos (and others) under §1983 for alleged Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state torts.
- The defendants contracted CCA operated NMWCF under NM state policies; Hickson was warden; Vallejos and Greffet were corrections officers involved in Peña's claims.
- Peña alleges Greffet sexually assaulted her in 2009–2010; Peña alleges Vallejos grabbed and slammed Peña in a hallway in June 2011, causing bruising and PTSD symptoms.
- Following the hallway incident Peña was placed in segregation; Peña later alleged retaliation and ongoing harassment related to reporting the incidents.
- The original complaint was dismissed in part for insufficient pleadings; Peña amended the complaint (Feb 28, 2013) alleging more detailed facts about the Vallejos encounter.
- The court granted in part Vallejos’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim with prejudice but allowing the state-law battery claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peña plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim | Peña alleges Vallejos acted with malice while restraining her | Forces used were part of a good-faith effort to maintain discipline; injury was de minimis | Eighth Amendment claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Peña plausibly stated a battery claim under New Mexico law | Vallejos used more force than reasonably necessary | Privileged force may be used to maintain custody; need not be excessive | Battery claim survives; not dismissed |
| Whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice | Should be without prejudice to amend if needed | Futility of amendment given current record; prejudice to defendant if delayed | Count II dismissed with prejudice; Count VI to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1992) (excessive force standard focuses on good-faith vs malicious intent, not injury alone)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court 1986) (factors for evaluating use of force in maintaining discipline)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for safety; subjective mental state test)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (Supreme Court 1991) (explicit articulation of the subjective and objective components of Eighth Amendment claims)
- Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1973) (limits of constitutional protection compared with common-law battery)
- United States v. LaVallee, 439 F.3d 670 (10th Cir. 2006) (no de minimis injury requirement to state an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim)
- Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1996) (analyze if Eighth Amendment claims apply under specific constitutional provisions)
- Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1188 (D.N.M. 2014) ( Erie doctrine and state-law procedure in diversity contexts; role of juries)
- State v. Ortega, 1992-NMCA-003 (N.M. Court of Appeals 1992) (New Mexico battery elements; privilege and contact case law)