United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Jeffrey W. McElroy and John Valdez, Davie & Valdez, P.C.,
El Paso, Texas, for Plaintiff Carlos Monasterio.
Defendant Jason Von Jimenez II, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
MONASTERIO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge.
MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff Carlos
Monasterio's Motion for Summary Judgment against
Defendant Jason Von Jimenez II, filed May 17, 2019. ECF No.
91. Upon consideration thereof, the motion is well taken and
should be granted.
was allowed to file this summary judgment motion after the
filing deadline on the condition that Defendant Jason Von
Jimenez II be given 21 days to respond. ECF No. 90. Plaintiff
served the motion on Defendant Jimenez via certified mail at
his current Los Lunas address on July 1, 2019. ECF No. 92. To
date, Mr. Jimenez has not responded. The failure to file and
serve a response constitutes consent to grant the motion.
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(b). Of course, the court also must be
satisfied that the motion and its supporting materials
demonstrate that the movant is entitled to summary judgment
given the undisputed facts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(3); Murray
v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir.
21, 2012, Defendant Jason Von Jimenez II was a passenger on a
Greyhound bus traveling from Alamogordo, New Mexico to
Roswell, New Mexico on Route Schedule 450. Pl.'s First
Set of Request for Admissions, Request for Admission Nos. 1
& 2 (ECF No. 91-2 at 3); see also Monasterio v.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00683-PJK-SMV, 2019
WL 318389, at *1 (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2019). He became involved
in an altercation with Mr. Monasterio, a fellow passenger.
Monasterio, 2019 WL 318389, at *1. Mr. Jimenez
stabbed Mr. Monasterio with a pocket knife, inflicting
serious but nonfatal wounds. Pl.'s First Set of Request
for Admissions, Request for Admission No. 8 (ECF No. 91-2 at
4); Jimenez Dep. at 97:8-11 (ECF No. 91-3 at 7); see also
Monasterio, 2019 WL 318389, at *1-2. Mr. Jimenez was
charged with and convicted by a jury of aggravated battery
with a deadly weapon with intent to commit a violent felony,
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-5(C). Criminal Compl. &
Verdict (ECF No. 91-4).
answer and an admission, Mr. Jimenez claims he acted in
self-defense, see Answer 1 (ECF No. 17); Pl.'s
First Set of Request for Admissions, Request for Admission
No. 18 (“Self Defense (Deadly force)”) (ECF No.
91-2 at 5), a defense he must prove by the greater weight of
the evidence. N.M.R.A., Civ. UJI 13-304. However, he is
collaterally estopped from relying on that defense in this
matter. To collaterally estop a party from raising
a claim or defense, a moving party must show (1) the
non-moving party was a party to the previous case, (2) the
present cause of action is different from that of the
previous case, (3) the issue was actually litigated in the
previous case, and (4) the issue was necessarily determined
in the previous case. Contreras v. Miller Bonded,
Inc., 316 P.3d 202, 206-07 (N.M. 2013). Once
established, the non-moving party must show he was not
afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in
the previous case. Id. Mr. Monasterio has met his
burden, and nothing suggests a rebuttal.
Monasterio has undisputed evidence that Mr. Jimenez was a
party to the previous criminal proceeding and that this civil
proceeding is separate from the previous criminal proceeding.
See Criminal Compl. & Verdict. Therefore, the
critical questions are whether Mr. Jimenez's defense was
actually litigated in the previous criminal trial, and
whether that issue was necessarily determined at trial. A
jury's verdict of guilty necessarily determines issues
essential to that verdict, and plaintiffs may introduce prior
judgments to establish their prima facie civil case.
Emich Motors Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp, 340 U.S.
558, 569 (1951). Although general verdicts, as here, may not
lend themselves to a subsequent determination of what issues
were essential to that verdict, id., Mr. Jimenez
testified by deposition that he claimed at trial he stabbed
Mr. Monasterio in self-defense. Jimenez Dep. 6, 93:6-10.
Stat. Ann. § 30-3-5 provides: “Aggravated battery
consists of the unlawful touching or application of
force to the person of another with intent to injure that
person or another.” § 30-3-5(A) (emphasis added).
Under New Mexico law, an application of force is not unlawful
if a defendant accused of aggravated battery acted in
self-defense. See State v. Rudolfo, 187 P.3d 170,
173-74 (N.M. 2008). A defendant is entitled to a self-defense
instruction if sufficient evidence shows (1) the defendant
subjectively feared an apparent danger of immediate death or
great bodily injury, (2) the application of force resulted
from that fear, and (3) the defendant's application of
force was objectively reasonable to prevent bodily harm.
See id. at 174. The state need not prove the
unlawfulness of a defendant's actions - that is, whether
the defendant acted in self-defense - unless the defendant
introduces evidence that creates reasonable doubt in the
minds of jurors. State v. Harrison, 471 P.2d 193,
200 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). If a defendant introduces such
evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant did not act in self-defense. See Mullaney
v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 702 (1975). At his criminal
trial, Mr. Jimenez was responsible for bringing forth all
defenses and his conviction confirms the government must have
proved beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Jimenez did not act in
self-defense. Mr. Jimenez cannot now attempt to prove by the
greater weight of the evidence his actions were justifiably
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:
Carlos Monasterio's Motion for Summary Judgment against
Defendant Jason Von Jimenez II, filed ...