United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
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. (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.Having considered the motions and the
relevant law, the Court denies the motions.
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
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).
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.
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
Motions to Reconsider or Renew her Appeal
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
Motions for an Order of Protection
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
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.
Motion to Refer Obstruction of Justice Incidents to the FBI
and Department of Justice
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.
Motion to Stay the Case to Obtain Counsel
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