Sanchez v. Melendrez
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46578
D.N.M.2013Background
- Plaintiff Preston Sanchez sued APD Officers Melendrez, Knight, and Young, Police Chief Ray Schultz, the City, and a Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office employee.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment claim, and dismissal of municipal and state-law claims.
- The case centers on a sting operation (“backpack tact plan”) near a high school in downtown Albuquerque.
- A backpack containing a broken laptop, beer, and cigarettes was placed by officers near an ATM; Sanchez took the backpack and was arrested for felony larceny after an ADA advised the plan was a good arrest.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim and dismissed other federal and state claims, with some rulings noted as moot or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Sanchez’s Fourth Amendment claim. | Sanchez contends arrest lacked probable cause. | Defendants argue probable cause existed or law was not clearly established. | Qualified immunity; Sanchez fails to show clearly established rights; grant of summary judgment on Fourth Amendment claim. |
| Whether municipal liability attaches under Monell. | City’s policy/custom caused the deprivation. | No formal policy, custom, or ratification; no deliberate indifference. | Summary judgment for defendants; no municipal liability under Monell. |
| Whether Sanchez’s expungement claim is viable. | Expungement is warranted due to lack of probable cause and sting impact. | No statutory or equitable basis; not compelling extraordinary circumstances. | Expungement claim dismissed. |
| Whether Chief Schultz can be held liable as a supervisor. | Schultz failed to supervise or authorize policy. | Iqbal requires personal involvement; no evidence of Schultz’s involvement. | Schultz dismissed from all claims. |
| Whether the state-law NM Tort Claims Act claim should be maintained or dismissed. | Federal court should exercise pendent state claims. | Court should decline jurisdiction because federal claims are resolved. | Claim dismissed without prejudice; court declines supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity burden and reasonableness standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (officials have breathing room for reasonable mistakes)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1952) (intent to deprive as it relates to probable cause and larceny)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (clear establishment requires more than general proposition; particularized scrutiny)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom and causal link)
- Bryson v. City of Oklahoma City, 627 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (five forms of municipal liability for §1983)