United States District Court, D. New Mexico
TIERRA BLANCA RANCH HIGH COUNTRY YOUTH PROGRAM, SCOTT CHANDLER, COLETTE CHANDLER, AND BRYCE HALL, Plaintiffs
v.
FELIPE GONZALES, Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M.
CHRISTINA ARMIJO, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff Bryce Hall [Doc. 11] and
Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second Amended
Complaint. [Doc. 30] The Court has considered the
parties' submissions and the relevant law, and is
otherwise fully informed. For the following reasons, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second
Amended Complaint, and DENIES in part and GRANTS in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Bryce
Hall.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs
Tierra Blanca Ranch High Country Youth Program (the Program),
Scott Chandler, Colette Chandler, and Bryce Hall
(collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint
alleging deprivation of their constitutional rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in September, 2015. [Doc. 1
(Complaint)] Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant
Felipe Gonzales (Defendant) "used deceit and
intimidation to obtain consent to search their business
premises and subject them, participants and staff to
prolonged detention and interrogation with the intent and
result of depriving Plaintiffs of rights arising nnder the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983."
[Doe. 1 (Complaint); Doc. 6 (Amended
Complaint)} Plaintiff Hall also alleged a violation of
his First Amendment right to association. [Doc. 6]
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Every person who,
under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress . . . ."). An Amended
Complaint was filed in December, 2015. [Doc. 6
(Amended Complaint)} Defendant answered, [Doc. 10]
and also filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Bryee
Ball [Doc. 11] Plaintiffs responded to the Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 19] and filed a Motion to File Second
Amended Complaint. [Doc. 30]
The
following facts are derived from the Amended
Complaint. [Doc. 6] The Program "is a pnvately
funded program for troubled youths that provides a simple
ranch life with the goal of helping troubled teenagers turn
their lives around." [Doc. 6, ¶ 11] Plaintiff Bryce
Hall was enrolled in the Program at the time of the events at
tssue, and Plaintiff Scott Chandler (Chandler) is an owner
and director of the Program. [Doc. 6, ¶¶ 5-7]
In
September, 2013, a resident of the Program was killed in a
car accident while riding in a vehicle driven by a Program
staff member. [Doc. 6, ¶ 32] The New Mex.co State
Police, among others, responded to the accident. [Doc. 6,
¶ 33] A few days after the accident, Defendant contacted
Chandler to arrange to question people involved in the
accident. [Doc. 6, ¶ 35] Approximately six days later,
Defendant arrived at the Program with five other state police
officers as well as five staff members of the New Mexico
Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD). [Doc. 6,
¶ 40] Plaintiffs allege that, over objections by the
Chandlers and "[u]sing threats and coercion, CYFD and
the New Mexico State Police entered the property and
interviewed the youths without permission or a warrant."
[Doc. 6, ¶ 47] Plaintiffs further allege that after the
interviews, CYFD "directed [the parents of youths in the
Program] to remove their youths from the . . . Program
because the Program was going to be shut down." [Doc. 6,
¶ 60] The Amended Complaint states that
Chandler was forced to "return the boys to their
families due to the untenable situation caused by the actions
of CYFD following the September 30, 2013 interviews."
[Doc. 6, ¶ 56]
Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant "illegally entered onto the Tierra
Blanca Creek Ranch property and detained Bryce Hall against
his will without warrants or other legal basis, " [Doc.
6, ¶ 95] and that "[a]s a result of the actions by
[Defendant, ] and/or others under his command or in the
course of events instigated by him, Plaintiff Bryce Hall was
forcibly sent away from the Program and deprived of his
constitutional right of association, and the care and
guidance of the . . . Program, which he was depending on to
turn his life around and keep him out of trouble." [Doc.
6, ¶ 96] In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs
allege that "[b]ecause of the State's conduct, Bryce
sustained additional living and educational expenses, loss of
income, loss of earning capacity, suffered emotional trauma,
strained family relations and interference with
privacy." [Doc. 6, ¶ 106]
Defendant
now moves to dismiss Plaintiff Bryce Hall [Doc. 11] on the
grounds that 1) Hall lacks standing to bring claims against
Defendant, and 2) Hall has failed to state a claim related to
his First Amendment right to association. [Doc. 11] Plaintiff
Hall opposes the motion to dismiss [Doc. 19] and also moves
to amend the complaint. [Doc. 30]
II.
Analysis
A.
Order of Consideration of Motions
The
first question presented is the order in which to consider
the pending motions. In essence, Plaintiffs' Motion
to File Second Amended Complaint seeks to modify the
Amended Complaint to address the deficiencies
identified by Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
[Doc. 30] Thus, if the Second Amended Complaint
rectifies any such deficiencies, the Motion to
Dismiss is moot. See Gotfredson v. Larsen LP,
432 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006) (stating that
"[a] pleading that has been amended under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a), supersedes the pleading it
modifies" and that "motions to dismiss [filed
before an amended pleading] are technically moot because they
are directed at a pleading that is no longer
operative."). However, if the Second Amended
Complaint also fails to state a claim, then the
amendment would be futile and the Court may properly deny
leave to amend. Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 920
(10th Cir. 1992) (stating that a district court is
"justified in denying the motion to amend if the
proposed amendment could not have withstood a motion to
dismiss or otherwise failed to state a claim.").
Defendant
argues that his Motion to Dismiss must be considered
before granting leave to amend the Amended
Complaint. [Doc. 31, pg. 2] Such an approach is contrary
to the "preferred practice, " which is "to
accord a plaintiff notice and an opportunity to amend his
complaint before acting upon a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim." McKinney v. State of Okl, Dep
't of Human Servs., Shawnee OK, 925 F.2d 363, 365
(10th Cir. 1991). The Court will therefore consider first
Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second Amended
Complaint.
B.
Plaintiff's Motion to File Second Amended
Complaint
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to amend its
pleading by leave of the court after a responsive pleading is
served, and provides that leave shall be freely given when
justice so requires.
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment,
etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
"freely given."
Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see
Castleglen, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 984 F.2d
1571, 1585 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing cases). Defendant's
only argument in opposition to the proposed Second
Amended Complaint is that the Second Amended
Complaint fails to adduce facts necessary to support
Plaintiffs' claims, an argument closely related to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 31, pg. 2]
Thus, he does not argue that he will suffer undue prejudice
if the amendment is granted, or that Plaintiffs have acted in
bad faith. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs'
Motion to File Second Amended Complaint should be,
and hereby is, granted. The Court will consider
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in light of the
facts set forth in the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
See Bauer v. City & Cty. of Denver, 642 F.App'x
920, 925 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (affirming the
district court's denial of a motion to amend where the
district ...