Cruz v. City of Deming

1

ERNESTINA CRUZ, as personal representative of the Estate of Gilbert Valencia and G.R.V., a minor, through next friend Marianna Wheeler, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DEMING, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00957-MIS-GJF

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

November 2, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. I: DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE RESULTING IN ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM AND GRANTING NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. II: DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION CLAIM

MARGARET STRICKLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant New Mexico Department of Public Safety's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. I: Dismissal of Negligence Resulting in Assault and Battery and Wrongful Death Claim (“First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”), ECF No. 28, and Defendant New Mexico Department of Public Safety's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. II: Dismissal of Negligent Training and Supervision Claim (“Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”), ECF No. 29. Plaintiff Ernestina Cruz as personal representative of the estate of Gilbert Valencia and Marianna Wheeler on behalf of G.R.V (collectively “Plaintiffs”), responded and Defendant New Mexico Department of Public Safety (NMDPS) replied. ECF Nos. 39-41, 43. Upon due consideration of the parties' submissions, the record, and the relevant law the Court will GRANT the Motions.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from the shooting death of Gilbert Valencia at the hands of police officers from the Deming Police Department during an encounter between Mr. Valencia and law enforcement officers from the Deming Police Department, Luna County Sheriff's Department, and New Mexico State Police (“NMSP”). See generally ECF No. 1-1. The facts below are undisputed and stated in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs for purposes of the present motion:^[1]

A. Actions of Sergeant Madrid on February 3, 2021

At all relevant times, New Mexico State Police Sergeant Mark Madrid was a law enforcement officer employed by NMSP. See Defendant New Mexico Department of Public Safety's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“DUMF”) 5, 8; ECF No. 39 ¶¶ 5, 8.^[2] On February 3, 2021, the date Mr. Valencia was killed, Sergeant Madrid was supervising NMSP Officers Andy Parra and Darrian Jarrott. Plaintiffs' Additional Statement of Facts (“PUMF”) ¶ M; ECF No. 41 ¶ M. Sergeant Madrid heard radio dispatch report that a male subject was in the center median of Interstate 10, near milepost 82, shooting at passing vehicles. DUMF 8; ECF No. 39 ¶ 8. Sergeant Madrid traveled to milepost 82 and met with officers Parra and Jarrott. DUMF 9; ECF No. 39 ¶ 9. Together, Sergeant Madrid and the other NMSP officers walked into the desert adjoining the north side of Interstate 10 and ultimately met a law enforcement officer from the Deming Police Department. Id. The Deming Police Department officer told the NMSP officers about a cell phone the Deming Police Department officer had found on the ground. DUMF 10; ECF No. 39 ¶ 10. Sergeant Madrid did not know whether the cell phone had any connection to the male subject the officers were looking for, but he volunteered to stay with the cell phone while the other officers continued to search for the suspect. Id.; DUMF 11; PUMF Q; ECF No. 41 ¶ Q. “A short time later,” Sergeant Madrid heard multiple gunshots and decided to leave the cell phone to see if his assistance was needed. DUMF 12. When Sergeant Madrid arrived at the area where Gilbert Valencia had been killed, he secured the scene with crime tape and directed another NMSP officer to start a crime scene log. DUMFs 1, 13; ECF No. 39 ¶¶ 1, 13.

B. April 6, 2021, Tort Claims Act Notice and Institutional History of NMDPS

On April 6, 2021, the State of New Mexico's Risk Management Division received a Tort Claims Act notice from the Estate of Gilbert Valencia informing it that the State of New Mexico; the NMSP; and agents, employees, or contractors of the NMSP may be subjects of a lawsuit. ECF No. 28 ¶ 2; ECF No. 28-1; ECF No. 39 ¶ 2. The New Mexico Department of Public Safety (NMDPS), which was not explicitly named in the Tort Claims Act Notice, id., is “responsible for statewide law enforcement services [and] training,” PUMF E; ECF No. 41 ¶ E. The NMDPS was formed in 1986 by the unification of the “formerly independent” NMSP with other state departments into a single entity. PUMF B (quoting Department of Public Safety, About the Department, https://www.nm.gov/departments-and-agencies/department-of-public-safety/ (last visited November 2, 2023)); ECF No. 41 ¶ B. NMSP is now a division of NMDPS. See PUMF F; ECF No. 41 ¶ F.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint for Civil Rights Violations, Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Assault, Battery, and Negligent Training and Supervision Resulting in the Wrongful Death of Gilbert Valencia (“Amended Complaint”), ECF No. 1-1, on December 15, 2022. Defendants City of Deming, Lee Cook Jordan, Sergio Quezada, Cristobal Paz, Adam Aragon, Robert Chavez, Benjamin Sanchez, David Acosta, and Ashley Standridge removed this proceeding to federal court on December 16, 2022. ECF No. 1. Relevant here, the Amended Complaint brings claims against Defendant NMDPS for: (1) negligence resulting in assault and battery and wrongful death based on the actions/inactions of New Mexico State Police Sergeant Mark Madrid^[3] (“Count II”) and (2) negligent training, supervision, and retention based on Defendant NMDPS's alleged failure to train and supervise Sergeant Madrid (“Count III”). ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 111-119, 132-33, 136, 138-39. On April 10, 2023, Defendant NMDPS filed the instant First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, arguing that Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Plaintiffs filed their responses on May 22, 2023. ECF Nos. 39, 40. The motions were fully briefed on May 31, 2023, see ECF Nos. 42, 44, with the filing of Defendant NMDPS's replies, ECF Nos. 41, 43.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, discovery materials, and affidavits or declarations show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), (c). “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion[] and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant meets this burden, the non-movant must put in the record facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-52 (1986). A fact is “material” if, under the substantive law, it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim. Id. at 248. And a dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.

The non-moving party cannot rely upon conclusory allegations or contentions of counsel to defeat summary judgment. See Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 649 (10th Cir. 1988). Rather, the non-movant has a responsibility to “go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts so as to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [their] case in order to survive summary judgment.” Johnson v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1184, 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998)).

It is not a court's role to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Daniels v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 701 F.3d 620, 627 (10th Cir. 2012). Rather, the court resolves all doubts against the movant, construes all admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 551-52 (1999); Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005).

IV. DISCUSSION

In its First and Second Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendant NMDPS argues that Plaintiffs' claims against it in Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint are subject to dismissal due to Plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the New Mexico Tort Claims Act's (“NMTCA”) notice requirement. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-4-16 (1978). Specifically, Defendant NMDPS argues that it neither had actual notice nor received written notice of Plaintiffs' claims against it before Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit. ECF No. 28 at 8-11; ECF No. 29 at 8 n.2. Because the issue of whether Plaintiffs satisfied the NMTCA's notice requirements as to Defendant NMDPS is a threshold issue, the Court begins by addressing the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' Tort Claims Act notice before turning to Defendant NMDPS's arguments about liability. See Galvan v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Curry Cnty., 261 F.Supp.3d 1140, 1144 (D.N.M. 2017) (“[B]ecause under Section 41-4-16(B) actual notice is a jurisdictional question and separate from the ultimate issue of liability, whether the facts give rise to a reasonable inference that a claim may be filed is a threshold inquiry to be resolved by the court.” (quoting Lopez v. State, 930 P.2d 146, 151 (N.M. 1996))).

A. Notice Under the NMTCA

Under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, claimants ordinarily must submit notice of their claims to an appropriate...