Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Auld v. Central New Mexico Community College

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

January 13, 2020

RIEMA AULD, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, PAM ETRE-PEREZ, TOM PIERCE, WILLIAM HEENAN, CAROL ADLER, TOM MANNING, and KATHIE WINOGRAD, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         This matter comes before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff's motions to reconsider or renew her appeal; motions for order of protection; motion to refer obstruction of justice incidents to the FBI and Department of Justice; motion to stay the case to obtain counsel; and motions for appointment of counsel.[1] (Doc. 70), filed Aug. 13, 2019; (Doc. 71), filed Aug. 14, 2019; (Doc. 72), filed Aug. 29, 2019; (Doc. 73), filed Sept. 3, 2019; (Doc. 74), filed Sept. 9, 2019; and (Doc. 75), filed Oct. 4, 2019. Plaintiff does not indicate whether she sought concurrence from Defendants prior to filing the motions. Defendants also did not respond to any of the motions.[2]Having considered the motions and the relevant law, the Court denies the motions.

         As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Local Rules state that an omission of “a recitation of a good-faith request for concurrence” in a motion can lead to the summary denial of that motion. D.N.M. LR-Cv 7.1(a). The Local Rules further state that a failure to respond to a motion “constitutes consent to grant the motion.” D.N.M. LR-Cv 7.1(b). Here, Plaintiff violated Local Rule 7.1(a) while Defendants violated Local Rule 7.1(b). Despite these violations of the Local Rules, the Court, in the interest of justice, chooses to address the merits of the motions. D.N.M. LR-Cv 1.7 (“These rules may be waived by a Judge to avoid injustice.”).

         On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed in state court an amended employment discrimination complaint against Central New Mexico Community College (CNM) and its employees. (Doc. 1-2). On July 11, 2014, Defendants removed the employment discrimination lawsuit to federal court. (Doc. 1). On June 30, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Defendants. See (Doc. 44).

         More than three years later, Plaintiff filed: (i) a motion to reopen the case (also construed as a motion to amend the complaint); (ii) a motion to appoint counsel; (iii) a motion to be entered in the Federal Witness Protection Program and for emergency attorney representation; and (iv) a motion for protection. See (Doc. 45), filed Nov. 1, 2018; (Doc. 47), filed Nov. 16, 2018; (Doc. 52), filed Nov. 30, 2018; and (Doc. 56), filed Jan. 22, 2019. These motions did not concern Plaintiff's employment discrimination lawsuit. Instead, the motions pertained to allegations of medical mistreatment by the University of New Mexico Hospital (UNMH) and its employees. On April 22, 2019, the Court denied the motion to reopen the case, denied the motion to amend the complaint, and denied the motions for protection and to appoint counsel as moot. See (Doc. 61) at 4.

         On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 62). Then, on July 26, 2019, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 69). About two weeks later, Plaintiff began filing the above pending motions.

         1. Motions to Reconsider or Renew her Appeal

         Plaintiff did not file the motions to reconsider or renew her appeal in her appellate case. The Court cannot address those motions for the Tenth Circuit. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motions to reconsider or renew her appeal without prejudice to Plaintiff filing them in her appellate case.

         2. Motions for an Order of Protection

         Plaintiff bases her three motions for an order of protection on grievances she has regarding treatment at UNMH and included two of those motions in her motions to reconsider or renew her appeal. However, only the Tenth Circuit can decide the motions to reconsider or renew the appeal, including the two related motions for an order of protection. As a result, this Court denies those motions for an order of protection without prejudice to Plaintiff filing the motions in her appellate case.

         To the extent Plaintiff is seeking an order of protection from this Court and not from the Tenth Circuit, the Court notes that the allegations supporting the motions for an order of protection bear no reasonable connection to Plaintiff's employment discrimination complaint against CNM and its employees. As noted above, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to include grievances against UNMH and its employees for medical mistreatment. (Doc. 61) at 4. Consequently, the UNMH claims, and any allegations associated with those claims, are not before the Court. Because the UNMH claims and allegations in the motions for an order of protection are not before the Court, the Court denies the three motions for an order of protection for that reason as well.

         3. Motion to Refer Obstruction of Justice Incidents to the FBI and Department of Justice

         Plaintiff does not cite any legal authority to suggest that the Court has the authority or duty to refer alleged obstruction of justice incidents to the FBI and Department of Justice. See D.N.M. LR-Cv 7.3 (a) (“A motion … must cite authority in support of the legal positions advanced.”). In addition, Plaintiff does not explain why she cannot report those incidents directly to the FBI and Department of Justice. Hence, the motion to refer obstruction of justice incidents to the FBI and Department of Justice lacks merit. The Court, therefore, denies that motion.

         4. Motion to Stay the Case to Obtain Counsel

         Plaintiff filed the motion to stay the case to obtain counsel on August 29, 2019. (Doc. 72). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has had four months to obtain counsel, and in effect received a four-month stay. Four months is sufficient time to obtain counsel and as yet failed to do so. Thus, a further stay is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.