DARLENE COLLINS; BAIL BOND ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO; RICHARD MARTINEZ; BILL SHARER; CRAIG BRANDT; CARL TRUJILLO v. CHARLES W. DANIELS; EDWARD L. CHAVEZ; PETRA JIMENEZ MAEZ; BARBARA J. VIGIL; JUDITH K. NAKAMURA; NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT; NAN NASH; THE SECOND JUDICIAL COURT; HENRY A. ALAINZ; ROBERT L. PADILLA; BERNALILLO COUNTY METROPOLITAN COURT; JAMES NOEL; BERNALILLO COUNTY; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
Nos. 17-2217 and 18-2045
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
February 25, 2019
PUBLISH
Richard Westfall, Hale Westfall, Denver, Colorado (A. Blair Dunn and Dori E. Richards, Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the briefs), appearing for Appellants.
Ari Biernoff, Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico, appearing for Appellees Charles W. Daniels, Edward L. Chavez, Petra Jimenez Maez, Barbara J. Vigil, Judith K. Nakamura, the New Mexico Supreme Court, Nan Nash, the Second Judicial Court, Henry Alainz, Robert Padilla, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, and James Noel.
Brandon Huss, The New Mexico Association of Counties, Santa Fe, New Mexico, on the brief for Appellee County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo.
Before BRISCOE, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
This is a § 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality of New Mexico‘s system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (“BBANM“), and five New Mexico state legislators (the “Legislator Plaintiffs“) allege that New Mexico‘s system of bail violates the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as well as the procedural and substantive components of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 Plaintiffs further allege that the rules governing New Mexico‘s system of bail were promulgated by the New Mexico Supreme Court in violation of the New Mexico Constitution. Defendants-Appellees are the New Mexico Supreme Court and its justices; the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, its chief judge, and its
court executive officer; and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, its chief judge, and its court executive officer.2
The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because it found that BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lack standing, Defendants are immune from suit, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The district court also granted Defendants’ motion for sanctions and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Plaintiffs timely appealed.3 Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to
I
A. Legal Background
As of 2014, when bail hearings were held in New Mexico, judges commonly set the amount of any secured bail bond based “solely on the nature of [a
defendant‘s] charged offense without regard to individual determinations of flight risk or continued danger to the community.” State v. Brown, 338 P.3d 1276, 1292 (N.M. 2014). The New Mexico Supreme Court held that this practice was impermissible because “[n]either the [New Mexico] Constitution nor [New Mexico‘s] rules of criminal procedure permit[ted] a judge to base a pretrial release decision solely on the severity of the charged offense.” Id. The Court explained that “[s]etting money bail based on the severity of the crime leads to either release or detention, determined by a defendant‘s wealth alone instead of being based on the factors relevant to a particular defendant‘s risk of nonappearance or reoffense in a particular case.” Id.
In March 2016, the New Mexico legislature proposed amending the state constitution to change how the state administers bail. S.J. Res. 1, 52d Leg., 2d Sess. (N.M. 2016). The amendment was ratified by popular referendum in November 2016. The relevant provision now reads:
All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great and in situations in which bail is specifically prohibited by this section. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
Bail may be denied by a court of record pending trial for a defendant charged with a felony if the prosecuting authority requests a hearing and proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community. An appeal from an order denying bail shall be given preference over all other matters.
A person who is not detainable on grounds of dangerousness nor a flight risk in the absence of bond and is otherwise eligible for
bail shall not be detained solely because of financial inability to post a money or property bond. A defendant who is neither a danger nor a flight risk and who has a financial inability to post a money or property bond may file a motion with the court requesting relief from the requirement to post bond. The court shall rule on the motion in an expedited manner.
In July 2017, the Supreme Court of New Mexico revised the state‘s Rules of Criminal
Pending trial, any defendant eligible for pretrial release under Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution, shall be ordered released pending trial on the defendant‘s personal recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount set by the court, unless the court makes written findings of particularized reasons why the release will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. The court may impose non-monetary conditions of release . . ., but the court shall impose the least restrictive condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person or the community.
If the court makes findings of the reasons why release on personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond, in addition to any non-monetary conditions of release, will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required, the court may require a secured bond for the defendant‘s release.
The 2017 Rules were meant to “clarify that the amount of [a] secured bond must not be based on a bond schedule, i.e., a predetermined schedule of monetary amounts fixed according to the nature of the charge.”
(referring to
Depending on a defendant‘s custodial status, a “district court shall conduct a hearing and issue an order setting the conditions of release as soon as practicable, but in no event later than” three to five “days after the date of arrest.”
B. Factual Background
Two additional events underlie Plaintiffs’ claims. First, in late 2016, the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court—acting through their chief judges and court executive officers—signed a memorandum of understanding with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, allowing the courts to use the Arnold Tool to perform risk assessments of criminal defendants prior to their bail hearings. App. Vol. I at 29, 65–72. The Arnold Tool, formally known as the Public Safety Assessment, “considers nine factors to measure the risk an eligible
Second, on Saturday, July 1, 2017—the first day when the 2017 Rules were in effect—Plaintiff Darlene Collins was arrested for “aggravated assault arising out of a domestic dispute,”
arraignment and then for trial.” App. Vol. I at 33. But the jailhouse “could not, under the new Supreme Court Rules[,] consider releasing . . . Collins subject to monetary bail,” even though Collins‘s “family was prepared to use their own financial resources with the assistance of a member of . . . BBANM to pay the required amount for pre-arraignment release.”
C. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs Collins, BBANM,5 and the Legislator Plaintiffs brought this case as a putative class action on behalf of all New Mexico criminal defendants whose bail hearings have been or will be conducted using the 2017 Rules or the Arnold Tool.
secured bond only when it is determined that no other conditions of release will reasonably assure the eligible defendant‘s appearance in court when required.”
Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants violate the procedural component of the Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment “[b]y imposing liberty-restricting conditions on Collins and other presumptively innocent criminal defendants without offering them the historically-required option of non-excessive monetary bail.”
Plaintiffs seek damages, a declaration that the 2017 Rules and use of the Arnold Tool are unconstitutional, and an injunction against future use of the 2017 Rules and the Arnold Tool.
Court, the Second Judicial District Court, and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing; sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against the courts themselves and the state officials in their official capacities; legislative immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against the supreme court justices; judicial immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against the state court judges and court executive officers; and Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim.
defamatory Rule 11 [m]otion directed personally at Plaintiffs’ counsel.”
The district court granted the motion to dismiss after finding that BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lacked standing; that Plaintiffs’ claims against the state courts and individual defendants, in their official capacities, are barred by sovereign immunity; that Plaintiffs’ claims against the state court judges and court executives, in their individual capacities, are barred by judicial immunity; that Plaintiffs’ claims against the state supreme court justices, in their individual capacities, are barred by legislative immunity; and that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The district court granted the motion for sanctions because it found that there was no objectively reasonable basis for Plaintiffs to think that BBANM or the Legislator Plaintiffs had standing, or that Plaintiffs could overcome Defendants’ immunities. The district court also found that BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs were named as plaintiffs for an improper purpose. Finally, the district court denied the motion to amend as futile. Plaintiffs timely appealed all three rulings.
II
We review de novo whether Plaintiffs have standing. S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Palma, 707 F.3d 1143, 1152 (10th Cir. 2013). “Each plaintiff must have standing to seek each form of relief in each claim.” Am. Humanist Ass‘n, Inc. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 859 F.3d 1243, 1250 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1106 (10th Cir. 2007)).
“[S]tanding ‘is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.‘” S. Utah Wilderness All., 707 F.3d at 1153 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).
To satisfy Article III‘s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show: “(1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Id. (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000)).
A. BBANM
Plaintiffs argue that BBANM has standing because it (1) “has associational standing,” Aplt. Br. at 30, and (2) “has third-party standing to assert the constitutional rights of potential customers [who will be] denied bail,”
reality, whether BBANM has standing is only a question of third-party standing. “An association has . . . standing” “to raise [the] claims of [its] members” “only if: ‘(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization‘s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.‘” Chamber of Commerce v. Edmonson, 594 F.3d 742, 756 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm‘n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). We need only consider the first prong of associational standing. Because BBANM‘s members are not criminal defendants, they do not possess the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights asserted in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Therefore, like BBANM itself, BBANM‘s members only have standing if they can assert the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
“Ordinarily, a party ‘must assert his own legal rights’ and ‘cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights . . . of third parties.‘” Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678, 1689 (2017) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). “But we recognize an
Kowalski, 543 U.S. at 130). Neither BBANM nor its members are eligible for this exception to the rule against third-party standing.
In Kowalski, two attorneys challenged a state statute that generally prohibited the “appointment of appellate counsel for indigents who plead guilty.” 543 U.S. at 128. The plaintiffs alleged that the “statute denied indigents their federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.” Id. The Supreme Court held that “the attorneys [did] not have third-party standing to assert the rights of . . . indigent defendants denied appellate counsel.” Id. at 134. First, the Court reasoned that, because the attorneys sought to assert the rights of “as yet unascertained . . . criminal defendants” whose rights would be violated, “[t]he attorneys . . . [did] not have a close relationship with their alleged clients; indeed, they [had] no relationship at all.” Id. at 130–31 (quotation marks omitted). Next, the Court explained “that the lack of an attorney . . . is [not] the type of hindrance necessary to allow another to assert the indigent defendants’ rights.” Id. at 132. Proceeding pro se, the indigent defendants could assert their constitutional rights on direct appeal and in collateral proceedings. Id. at 131–32.
Like the attorneys in Kowalski, BBANM and its members lack third-party standing. First, BBANM and its members have “no relationship at all,” id. at 131, with “potential customers denied bail under” the 2017 Rules and the Arnold Tool, Aplt. Br. at 32. Second, criminal defendants in New Mexico are not hindered in asserting their own constitutional rights in their own criminal proceedings or in a § 1983 suit, as Collins has done here. Plaintiffs argue that criminal defendants are
hindered in asserting their own rights because they need “a third-party willing to expend funds to challenge the constitutionality of the” 2017 Rules, especially because criminal defendants subject to pretrial conditions of release “need to prepare for their criminal trial[s].” Aplt. Br. at 33–34. But the criminal defendants in Kowalski were not hindered in asserting their constitutional rights even though they were proceeding pro se and needed to prepare for their criminal appeals, likely while in custody. 543 U.S. at 131-32.
B. The Legislator Plaintiffs
“[A] threshold question in the legislator standing inquiry is whether the legislator-plaintiffs assert an institutional injury.” Kerr v. Hickenlooper (Kerr II), 824 F.3d 1207, 1214 (10th Cir. 2016). “[I]ndividual legislators may not support standing by alleging only an institutional injury.” Id. “[A]n institutional injury constitutes some injury to the power of the legislature as a whole rather than harm to an individual legislator.” Id. “[I]nstitutional injuries . . . do not ‘zero in on any individual’ legislator and are ‘widely dispersed’ and ‘necessarily impact all members of a legislature equally.‘” Id. (alterations omitted) (quoting Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm‘n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2664 (2015)).
Plaintiffs suggest that the Legislator Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the 2017 Rules because the rules represent “an unconstitutional usurpation of
[legislative] power by” the New Mexico Supreme Court. Aplt. Br. at 36. In our view, it is
In an attempt to evade our holding in Kerr II, Plaintiffs contend that their situation is “sui generis” because the Legislator Plaintiffs’ claim involves a “separation-of-powers component.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 22–23. Notwithstanding that Plaintiffs waive this argument by first raising it in their Reply Brief, In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, 872 F.3d 1094, 1105 n.2 (10th Cir. 2017), a “case [that] presents separation of powers concerns” merits a rigorous standing inquiry, Kerr II, 824 F.3d at 1215 (citing Ariz. State Legislature, 135 S. Ct. at 2665 n.12). Rather than advance their standing argument, Plaintiffs have highlighted a facet of their case that weighs against concluding that the Legislator Plaintiffs have standing.
C. Darlene Collins
Defendants do not challenge Collins‘s standing on appeal, though they did unsuccessfully raise the issue before the district court in their motion to dismiss. We can raise issues of standing and mootness sua sponte because we “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even
in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “Plaintiffs have the burden to demonstrate standing for each form of relief sought.” Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006). This burden exists “at all times throughout the litigation,” id., though our terminology changes depending on the stage of litigation. “[M]ootness ‘[is] the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).‘” Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1164 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997)).
Collins seeks damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. App. Vol. I at 47–48. When Collins filed suit, she had standing to seek damages for the alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights.9 See Faustin v. City, Cty. of Denver, 268 F.3d 942, 948 (10th Cir. 2001). Her claim for damages is not moot; a damages award would still compensate Collins for her alleged injury. Lippoldt, 468 F.3d at 1216–17. The same is true insofar as Collins seeks a retrospective declaratory judgment that her constitutional rights were violated in July 2017. Id. at 1217.
But Collins also seeks prospective relief, in the form of a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction. App. Vol. I at 47–48. Assuming that Collins had standing to seek prospective relief when she filed suit, Collins‘s claims for
prospective relief are now moot because she is no longer subject to pretrial supervision. Lippoldt, 468 F.3d at 1217–19; Oral Argument at 5:35–5:45 (representation by Plaintiffs’ counsel that New Mexico is not pursuing criminal charges against Collins).
Moreover, a plaintiff cannot sustain a claim for prospective injunctive relief that is based on “speculative future harm.” Lippoldt, 468 F.3d at 1218. Plaintiffs
In summary, BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the claims raised in this case; Collins has standing to seek damages and retrospective declaratory relief based on the alleged violation of her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; but Collins‘s claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive
relief are moot. Therefore, we turn to the question of whether Defendants are immune to Collins‘s claims for damages and retrospective declaratory relief.
III
We review de novo whether Defendants are immune from suit. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm‘n, 611 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010) (sovereign immunity); Lundahl v. Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936, 938 (10th Cir. 2002) (judicial immunity); Kamplain v. Curry Cty. Bd. of Comm‘rs, 159 F.3d 1248, 1250 (10th Cir. 1998) (legislative immunity). “The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.” Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 432 (1993). Three immunity doctrines are at issue in this case—sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and legislative immunity. We address each in turn.
A. Sovereign Immunity
Per the
719 F.3d 1139, 1146 n.8 (10th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). Collins has sued three New Mexico courts and various state officials in their official capacities to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief. New Mexico has not consented to this suit and Congress has not abrogated New Mexico‘s immunity from Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 611 F.3d at 1227. Therefore, we must decide whether the New Mexico courts named as defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity and whether Ex parte Young allows Collins to proceed against the state officials in their official capacities. Plaintiffs’ discussion of sovereign immunity is limited to a single sentence in their Opening Brief. See
“As a general matter, state courts are considered arms of the state” and are entitled to sovereign immunity. 13 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3524.2 (3d ed. 2018). The general rule holds true in this case. The New Mexico Supreme Court, the Second Judicial District Court, and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court are state agencies.
Collins‘s claims against the state officials in their official capacities also fail. Collins cannot proceed under Ex parte Young because she only has standing to seek retrospective declaratory relief.10 Ex parte Young “may not be used to obtain a declaration that a state officer has violated a plaintiff‘s federal rights in the past.” Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 159 F.3d 487, 495 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993)). Therefore, sovereign immunity also bars Collins‘s claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities.
B. Judicial Immunity
“Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). The “immunity applies only to personal capacity claims.” Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, 640 F.3d 1140, 1156 (10th Cir. 2011). At issue here is whether the chief judges and court executive officers of the Second Judicial District Court and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court are immune from Collins‘s claims for damages.
In two sentences of their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Second
C. Legislative Immunity
“Absolute legislative immunity attaches to all actions taken ‘in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.‘” Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54 (1998) (quoting Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376 (1951)). “Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it.” Id. A state “[c]ourt and its members are immune from suit when acting in their legislative capacity,” such as by promulgating “rules of general application [that] are statutory in character.” Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 731–34 (1980). Plaintiffs do not dispute that New Mexico‘s Rules of Criminal Procedure are “rules of general application.”12 Id. at 731.
Instead, Plaintiffs focus on whether the 2017 Rules are the result of “legitimate” legislative activity. They argue that the New Mexico legislature retains legislative power over criminal defendants’ substantive right to bail, such that the New Mexico Supreme Court exceeded its legislative power when promulgating the 2017 Rules. Aplt. Br. at 18–20, 49–51; Aplt. Reply Br. at 14–19. “To find that [an action] has exceeded the bounds of legislative power it must be obvious that there was a usurpation of functions exclusively vested in” another branch of government. Tenney, 341 U.S. at 378. That is not the case here. The New Mexico legislature has given the New Mexico Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules of criminal procedure.
The supreme court of New Mexico shall, by rules promulgated by it from time to time, regulate pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in all courts of New Mexico for the purpose of simplifying and promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits. Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.
In summary, sovereign immunity bars Collins‘s claims against the state courts and state officials in their official capacities; Plaintiffs have abandoned their argument regarding judicial immunity, which disposes of Collins‘s claims against the state court chief judges and court executive officers in their individual capacities; and legislative immunity bars Collin‘s claims against the supreme court justices in their individual capacities.
“Absolute immunity [undoubtedly] has its costs” for plaintiffs like Collins who seek to vindicate their constitutional rights. Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 687 (10th Cir. 1990). “The rationale for according absolute immunity in the civil rights context is to incorporate traditional common law immunities and to allow functionaries in the judicial system the latitude to perform their tasks absent the threat of retaliatory § 1983 litigation.” Id. at 686–87 (footnote omitted). “Though such suits might be satisfying personally for a plaintiff, they could jeopardize the judicial system‘s ability to function.” Id. at 687. “[S]uits against judges [are not] the only available means through which litigants can protect themselves from the consequences
To bring it all together, Collins is the only Plaintiff with standing, but Defendants are immune to her claims, so we do not address the merits of Collins‘s claims that the 2017 Rules and the Arnold Tool violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.14 Rather, we turn to the issue of sanctions.
IV
Before discussing the district court‘s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions, we briefly address appellate jurisdiction. We ordered briefing on the question of whether there is a final appealable order because the sanctions order contemplates a “future final award” of attorney‘s fees and does not define the amount of interest applicable to the sanctions award. Dkt. No. 10550099 at 3–4. “[I]n considering whether a judgment is ‘final’ under § 1291, the ‘label used to describe the judicial demand is not controlling,’ meaning we ‘analyze the substance of the district court‘s decision, not its label or form.‘” Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212, 1221 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Albright v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 59 F.3d 1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995)).
“[A] sanction order against an attorney currently of record is not a final decision for purposes of a § 1291 appeal where the underlying controversy remains unresolved.” Howard v. Mail-Well Envelope Co., 90 F.3d 433, 435 (10th Cir. 1996). Even once the merits of a case have been resolved, “an appeal from the award of sanctions may not be taken until the amount has been determined.” Turnbull v. Wilcken, 893 F.2d 256, 258 (10th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Phelps v. Washburn Univ. of Topeka, 807 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986)). Here, the district court‘s order imposing
Turning to the substance of the issue, “[w]e review for an abuse of discretion the district court‘s . . . imposition of
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney certifies
that to the best of the person‘s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; [and] (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law . . . .
When, as here, a pleading contains allegations that are not warranted by existing law, we examine whether they are “warranted by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Id. (quoting
After holding a hearing, the district court granted the motion for sanctions because (1) the Legislator Plaintiffs and BBANM “ha[d] no objectively reasonable basis for asserting standing to sue” and (2) “Plaintiffs’ claims for money damages against . . . Defendants are frivolous because . . . Defendants are protected by well-established immunity doctrines.”15 App. Vol. III at 687–90. The district court also found that “Plaintiffs’ counsel added the [L]egislator Plaintiffs and [BBANM] as parties to this case for [an] improper purpose—namely, for political reasons to express their opposition to lawful bail reforms in the State of New Mexico rather than to advance colorable claims for judicial relief.” Id. at 687. The district court ordered A. Blair Dunn, one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, to pay the attorney‘s fees and costs incurred by Defendants because of the
Plaintiffs’ standing arguments ignored controlling precedent. Under Kowalski, 543 U.S. at 131–34, BBANM and its members lack standing to assert the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. Under Kerr II, 824 F.3d at 1214–17, the Legislator Plaintiffs lack standing to assert an institutional injury. When Plaintiffs were confronted with these binding authorities in Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for
For example, without acknowledging that pro se criminal defendants in Kowalski were able to assert their own constitutional rights, Plaintiffs argued that criminal defendants in New Mexico cannot assert their own constitutional rights because they lack “funds to . . . retain counsel.” Id. at 307. Plaintiffs then asserted that BBANM and its members have a close relationship with every criminal defendant arrested in New Mexico since July 2017 because these defendants “already exist,” notwithstanding that the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion in Kowalski under a materially similar set of facts. Id. at 308. When attempting to evade Kerr II, Plaintiffs paradoxically claimed that the alleged loss of “the right of the legislature to pass laws” was not “an institutional injury.” Id. at 310.
Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding immunity suffer from similar infirmities.17 Most glaringly, Plaintiffs maintained that “any argument regarding sovereign immunity . . . [was] just not applicable” in this case because “Congress waived . . . sovereign immunity for individual state actors [by enacting] . . . § 1983.” App. Vol. II at 547. This statement is inaccurate. Will v. Mich. Dep‘t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63–71 (1989). It also offers no explanation why Plaintiffs thought the New Mexico Supreme Court,
As discussed previously, Plaintiffs abandoned their arguments about judicial immunity by failing to adequately brief them on appeal. Stender, 910 F.3d at 1117. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown how the district court abused its discretion when finding that Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding judicial immunity were not supported by existing law.
Plaintiffs then argued that legislative immunity was unavailable to New Mexico‘s supreme court justices because the New Mexico legislature “has never delegated exclusive legislative authority to the New Mexico Supreme Court.” App. Vol. II at 549. But the New Mexico legislature has empowered the New Mexico Supreme Court to promulgate rules of criminal procedure.
We now turn to the district court‘s finding that Plaintiffs included BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs for an improper purpose—to express political opposition to the 2017 Rules. Plaintiffs argue that “improper motivation does not warrant sanction when there is [an] objective basis for filing suit.” Aplt. Br. at 58–59; see also Burkhart ex rel. Meeks v. Kinsley Bank, 852 F.2d 512, 515 (10th Cir. 1988) (reasoning that an attorney who filed a harassing complaint could not be sanctioned under
Plaintiffs also argue that evidence of Dunn‘s letter to the New Mexico legislature about this lawsuit cannot support the district court‘s finding of political motivation because Dunn‘s letter is protected by the First Amendment. Aplt. Br. at 55; Aplt. Reply Br. at 25–26. The district court did not sanction Dunn for his letter to the state legislature. App. Vol. III at 687–88 (“While Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to express opinions regarding bail reform in New Mexico, Plaintiffs are not entitled to file claims in a federal court without standing solely to achieve political objectives.”). For the district court, Dunn‘s letter supported its finding that Dunn‘s choice to name BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs as plaintiffs was not motivated by a reasonable belief that they had standing.
Before moving on from the issue of
V
“We ordinarily review a denial of a motion to amend a pleading for abuse of discretion.” Miller ex rel. S.M. v. Bd. of Educ., 565 F.3d 1232, 1249 (10th Cir. 2009). “However, when denial is based on a determination that amendment would be futile, our review for abuse of discretion includes de novo review of the legal basis for the finding of futility.” Id. at 1249.
While Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for
“[T]he right of access to the courts is an aspect of the
VI
We AFFIRM.