Rains v. City of Grants, 35,678

Plaintiff Nelson Rains sued, claiming defendants (police officers) interfered with his right of access to the courts under the New Mexico Constitution and sought damages; he invoked the Tort Claims Act waiver for constitutional violations by officers.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6), arguing the constitutional claim failed insofar as it sought to vindicate rights of the decedent, John Rains.
Plaintiff’s filings consistently identified him as the personal representative of John Rains’ estate; he sometimes asserted (in opposing the calendar disposition) he sued in his individual capacity but did not amend the caption or pleadings.
The panel questioned whether an estate may vindicate constitutional rights for actions occurring after a decedent’s death and invited authority from Plaintiff; Plaintiff provided none.
The court concluded that constitutional rights do not survive the decedent and, absent authority that an estate holds separately vindicable constitutional rights, dismissed the access-to-courts claim and, as a result, affirmed dismissal of related tort claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff may vindicate constitutional right of access to courts on behalf of decedent’s estate for acts after death	Rains argued he sues as personal representative and (alternately) in his individual capacity for interference at the criminal trial	Defendants argued constitutional rights of a person cannot be violated after death; claims based on decedent’s rights therefore fail	Court held no authority was provided that an estate has vindicable constitutional rights after death; claim fails as to estate-based constitutional claim
Whether Plaintiff in fact sued in his individual capacity	Rains later asserted an individual-capacity claim in opposition	Defendants relied on caption and pleadings showing suit as personal representative	Court found the record and pleadings show suit filed only in representative capacity; not persuaded Rains sued individually
Whether dismissal of constitutional claim requires dismissal of related tort claims	Rains contended tort claims were separately viable	Defendants contended tort claims failed if constitutional claim dismissed	Court affirmed dismissal of tort claims because plaintiff did not demonstrate error after constitutional claim dismissal
Whether appellant met burden to show district court erred	Rains provided minimal authority/argument on appeal	Defendants relied on procedural record and lack of authority	Court found appellant failed to meet burden to demonstrate error and affirmed dismissal

Smith v. City of Artesia, 108 N.M. 339, 772 P.2d 373 (New Mexico Ct. App.) (civil rights of a person cannot be violated once that person has died)
Hennessy v. Duryea, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App.) (burden on party opposing summary calendar disposition to point out errors)
Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 320 P.3d 482 (N.M. Ct. App.) (failure to cite authority permits assumption no authority exists)
State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep’t v. Staples, 98 N.M. 540, 650 P.2d 824 (N.M. 1982) (appellate courts should not raise issues overlooked by counsel)
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (N.M. 1990) (appellate court presumes district court correct; appellant must clearly demonstrate error)