Tong v. State of NM
35,653
N.M. Ct. App.Apr 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tu My Tong, pro se, appealed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her amended complaint and the denial of her post-judgment motions.
- The district court dismissed because Plaintiff failed to show that named New Mexico state actors or agencies caused her injuries or that any act fell within a waiver of immunity under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (TCA).
- Plaintiff had previously sued in federal court; that court dismissed most claims and allowed a malicious-prosecution claim to proceed in state court to develop evidence tying injuries to state actors.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition explaining the evidentiary and jurisdictional deficiencies and invited a focused response from Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff submitted multiple lengthy, handwritten filings that conflated federal and state actors, failed to specify how named defendants were state actors, and raised federal constitutional and competency issues more appropriate for federal courts.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, denied further filings or amendment requests, and emphasized that federal-actor conduct is not actionable in this state TCA-based suit absent a showing that state actors caused the injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff showed state-actor causation for injuries arising from federal prosecution | Tong contended she named New Mexico defendants and that their actions caused her injuries | State argued Plaintiff did not identify or produce evidence tying named defendants to the injuries or show they were state actors | Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to demonstrate how named defendants were state actors or caused the injuries |
| Whether the New Mexico Tort Claims Act waiver applies | Tong argued claims against federal actors fall under TCA (or otherwise asserted state liability) | State argued TCA only waives immunity for state actors; federal actors are not covered and sovereign immunity bars suit absent waiver | Affirmed: Federal actors are not within TCA; plaintiff did not show a waiver for state defendants |
| Whether federal constitutional and trial-competency issues could be litigated on this state appeal | Tong raised Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment and competency claims from federal trial | State argued those issues belong in federal proceedings and are outside this Court’s appellate jurisdiction | Affirmed: Those constitutional issues are inappropriate for this state-court appeal; motion to amend to add them denied |
| Whether pro se filings justify additional extensions or liberal interpretation | Tong sought more time and filed numerous supplemental handwritten submissions | State and court noted plaintiff had ample opportunity and filings were unclear or unintelligible | Affirmed: No further pleadings permitted; court will not consider additional untimely or unintelligible filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Clayton v. Trotter, 110 N.M. 369, 796 P.2d 262 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (court will try to construe pro se arguments but is not required to entertain unintelligible claims)
- Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (court need not review inadequately developed or unclear arguments)
- Smith v. Cromer, 159 F.3d 875 (4th Cir. 1998) (actions against federal officials may implicate sovereign immunity; absent waiver courts lack jurisdiction over federal-employee actions)