Gallegos v. Bernalillo Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

MARTIN GALLEGOS, Plaintiff, v. BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; BERNALILLO COUNTYDETENTION CENTER; NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, andJOHN DOES 1 through 5, Defendants.

No. CIV 16-0127 JB/WPL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

August 17, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant New Mexico Department of Corrections' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support Thereof, filed April 7, 2017 (Doc. 67)("MSJ"); and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, filed February 17, 2017 (Doc. 58)("Motion to Amend"). The Court held a hearing on June 2, 2017. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendant New Mexico Department of Corrections is entitled to summary judgment, because the New Mexico Corrections Department enjoys sovereign immunity from Plaintiff Martin Gallegos' suit, including Gallegos' state tort claim and his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that the New Mexico Corrections Department inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on him in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by receiving him into custody such that Gallegos was without methadone; (ii) whether the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-4-1 to -30 ("NMTCA"), waives the New Mexico Corrections Department's Eleventh Amendment immunity from Gallegos' state tort claims for receiving him into custody such that Gallegos was without methadone; (iii) whether § 41-4-6(A)'s waiver provision does not apply, because the New Mexico Corrections Department failed to implement a safety policy regarding the provision of methadone necessary to protect those who use the building that housed Gallegos; (iv) whether § 41-4-6(A)'s waiver provision does not apply, because Gallegos' state tort claim is predicated on a single, discrete administrative act affecting only himself; (v) whether Gallegos' proposed amendment to add Mr. James Brewster, the New Mexico Corrections Department's General Counsel, is futile, because Mr. Brewster is immune from Gallegos' claims to the extent that they are based on Brewster's enforcement of facially-valid court orders; and (vi) whether the Court should deny Gallegos' proposed amendment to add Mr. Brewster as a defendant as futile, because Mr. Brewster was neither negligent nor deliberately indifferent to Gallegos' withdrawal symptoms.

The Court concludes that: (i) the New Mexico Corrections Department is entitled to summary judgment on Gallegos' claims, because the New Mexico Corrections Department enjoys sovereign immunity from Gallegos' suit; (ii) the NMTCA does not waive the New Mexico Corrections Department's Eleventh Amendment immunity from Gallegos' state tort claim; (iii) even if the NMTCA waives the New Mexico Corrections Department's Eleventh Amendment immunity from Gallegos' state tort claim, § 41-4-6(A)'s waiver provision does not apply, because Gallegos has not sufficiently demonstrated that the New Mexico Corrections Department failed to implement a safety policy necessary to protect those who use the building that housed him; (iv) even if the NMTCA waives the New Mexico Corrections Department's Eleventh Amendment immunity to Gallegos' state tort claims, § 41-4-6(A)'s waiver provision does not apply, because § 41-4-6(A) does not waive the New Mexico Corrections Department's immunity from Gallegos' state tort claim to the extent that Gallegos' state tort claim is predicated on a single, discrete administrative act affecting only himself; (v) Gallegos' proposedamendment to add Mr. Brewster as a defendant is futile, because Mr. Brewster is immune from Gallegos' claims to the extent that Gallegos' claims are based on Mr. Brewster's enforcement of facially valid court orders; and (vi) Gallegos' proposed amendment to add Mr. Brewster as a defendant is futile, because Mr. Brewster was neither negligent nor deliberately indifferent to Gallegos' withdrawal symptoms. Accordingly, the Court grants the MSJ and denies in part the Motion to Amend to the extent that Gallegos proposes to add Mr. Brewster as a defendant.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court draws the factual background from the parties' assertions of undisputed material fact in their summary judgment motion papers. See MSJ ¶¶ 1-12, at 2-4; Plaintiff's Response to Defendant New Mexico Department of Corrections Motion for Summary Judgment ¶¶ 13-26, at 1-4, filed April 24, 2017 (Doc. 68)("Response); Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant New Mexico Department of Corrections' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support Thereof ¶¶ 13-26, at 1-4, filed May 8, 2017 (Doc. 69)("Reply").

1. Gallegos' Remand to the Metropolitan Detention Center and Subsequent Transfer to the New Mexico Corrections Department.

On November 6, 2014, the Honorable Michael Martinez, District Court Judge Pro Tem for the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, remanded Gallegos to the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") in Albuquerque, New Mexico. See MSJ ¶ 1, at 2 (asserting this fact); Response at 1 (admitting this fact). See also Order Remanding Defendant to Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) ¶ 3A, at 1 (filed in state court on November 6, 2014), filed in federal court on April 7, 2017 (Doc. 67-1)("Remand Order").¹ The RemandOrder states that Gallegos shall remain in the MDC's custody "until his level of methadone² treatment has reached a point where he will not incur life-endangering withdrawal symptoms upon transfer" to the New Mexico Corrections Department. MSJ ¶ 1, at 2 (asserting this fact). See Response at 1 (admitting this fact); Remand Order ¶ 3.C, at 1-2. Gallegos asserts that "[i]t is clear that the Titration³ orders such as these were used frequently, by the District Court, for people who were on methadone." Response ¶ 21, at 3 (citing Deposition of Douglas Wilber at 32:18-33:1; id. at 33:10-25 (taken February 9, 2017)(Lawless, Wilber), filed April 7, 2016 (Doc. 68-1)("Wilber Depo."). See Reply ¶ 21, at 3 (not disputing the factual allegation).⁴ The courtfiled the Remand Order on November 6, 2014. See Remand Order at 1.⁵ The Remand Order states that it was to remain in effect for six weeks at maximum. See MSJ ¶ 1, at 2 (asserting this fact); Response at 1 (admitting this fact). See also Remand Order at ¶ 4, at 2.

On November 7, 2014, Judge Martinez committed Gallegos to the New Mexico Corrections Department. See MSJ ¶ 2, at 2 (asserting this fact); Response at 1 (admitting this fact). The state court sentenced Gallegos to serve an 834-day term in the New Mexico Corrections Department, beginning on November 6, 2014. See MSJ ¶¶ 2-3, at 2 (asserting this fact); Response at 1 (admitting this fact); Response ¶ 16, at 2 (asserting this fact); Reply ¶ 16, at 2 (admitting this fact). See also First Order Revoking Probation at 2, filed in state court on November 6, 2014, filed in federal court on April 7, 2017 (Doc. 67-2)("First Order Revoking Probation"); Judgment, Sentence, and Order Suspending Sentence, filed in state court on November 7, 2017, filed in federal court on April 7, 2017 (Doc. 67-3)("State Court Judgment, Sentence, and Order Suspending Sentence"). "On page two of the [probation revocation] order, the space entitled 'MDC' is crossed out and there is a handwritten note that says 'No MDC.'" MSJ ¶ 2, at 2 (alteration added)(asserting this fact)(quoting First Order Revoking Probation at 2); Response at 1 (admitting this fact). "[T]he Titration Order [i.e., the Remand Order] was signed out [sic] the same day as" the First Order Revoking Probation and the State Court Judgment, Sentence, and Order Suspending Sentence -- November 6, 2014. Response ¶ 15, at 2 (asserting this fact). See Reply ¶ 15, at 2 (not disputing this fact).⁶ The New Mexico Corrections Department received Gallegos from the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department on November 12, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. See MSJ ¶ 4, at 2 (asserting this fact); Response at 1 (admitting this fact).See also New Mexico Corrections Department Receipt of State Prisoner, filed April 7, 2017 (Doc. 67-4). Gallegos received a methadone dose on the day that he was transferred from MDC to the New Mexico Corrections Department. See Response ¶ 22, at 3 (alleging this fact); Reply ¶ 22, at 3 (alleging this fact).⁷

2. Discussions Between Gallegos' Counsel and the New Mexico Corrections Department Concerning Gallegos' Treatment.

Mr. Douglas Wilber, Gallegos' counsel in the state criminal matter, "was notified that [Gallegos] was no longer at MDC and had been transferred." Response ¶ 17, at 2 (citing Wilber Depo. at 9:1-25 (Wilber). See Reply ¶ 17, at 2 (not contesting this assertion). Mr. Wilber then contacted the New Mexico Corrections Department, because, according to Mr. Wilber, "we had [an] entered order that I thought would take care of it. So at this point, I thought I needed to figure out why it appeared that the order had been missed or whatever the situation was." Response ¶ 17, at 2 (citing Wilber Depo. at 14:14-17 (Wilber)). See Reply ¶ 17, at 2 (not disputing the factual allegation and "admit[ting] that Mr. Wilber made these statements in his deposition")(alteration added).⁸ After Mr. Wilber discovered that Gallegos had been transferredto the New Mexico Corrections Department, Mr. Wilber contacted Mr. Brewster, New Mexico Corrections Department General Counsel, on November 24, 2014. See MSJ ¶ 5, at 3 (asserting this fact); Response at 1 (admitting this fact). See also Affidavit of Douglas Wilber (dated November 23, 2015), filed April 7, 2017 (Doc. 67-5); Email from Douglas Wilber to James Brewster at 1 (dated November 24, 2014, 1:51 p.m.), filed April 7, 2017 (Doc. 67-6)("November 24, 2014, 1:51 p.m. Email from Wilber to Brewster")("I'm not sure if there was a mixup at MDC, but [Gallegos] was apparently transported with NO methadone step down . . . and he is in pretty bad shape.").⁹

Mr. Brewster replied to Mr. Wilber, requesting "all...