Stein v. State of New Mexico
684 F. App'x 720
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stuart L. Stein, a disbarred New Mexico lawyer, sued to declare two New Mexico statutes and a court rule (sealing provisions for guardianship/conservatorship records) unconstitutional under the First Amendment and contended he feared contempt prosecution under the rules.
- Stein sought broad access to sealed guardianship/conservatorship files to expose alleged abuses by judges, attorneys, guardians, and conservators.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and alternatively under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; it also denied preliminary injunctive relief and a recusal motion.
- Stein appealed the jurisdictional dismissal (and other rulings, which the panel deemed moot if jurisdiction lacking).
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed standing de novo and affirmed the dismissal, holding Stein failed to show an injury-in-fact (no concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury) or a right to unfettered access to the sealed files.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to bring facial First Amendment challenge to sealing statutes/rule | Stein argued the sealing provisions chill his speech and he fears contempt/prosecution, creating an imminent injury that justifies a facial challenge | State defended dismissal for lack of standing; no concrete, imminent injury or right to unfettered access was shown | Court held Stein lacked standing: no concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury; dismissal affirmed |
| Mootness of ancillary appeals (prelim. injunction, recusal) | Stein appealed denial of preliminary injunction and recusal order | State argued those issues are moot if district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction | Court held those issues moot because lack of jurisdiction disposed of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Utah, 321 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2003) (standing and Article III case-or-controversy requirements)
- ACLU of N.M. v. Santillanes, 546 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2008) (injury-in-fact standards for First Amendment claims)
- Kaw Nation v. Springer, 341 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2003) (mootness of issues not affecting outcome)
- Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 254 F.3d 941 (10th Cir. 2001) (affirmance of dismissal renders recusal motion on remand moot)
- Tran v. Tr. of State Colleges in Colo., 355 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned)