Carrete v. New Mexico Racing Commission

• Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
• Decided: September 21, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00678
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

JESUS CARRETE,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 21-cv-0678 SMV/JHR

NEW MEXICO RACING COMMISSION,

Defendant.

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT Location: AT&T Teleconference Line Call-in number: 888-363-4734 Code: 4382538

Date and time: November 15, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. MST Matter to be heard: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 3]

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer for Failure to Comply with Rule 1-075 NMRA [Doc. 3], filed on July 28, 2021. Plaintiff responded on August 9, 2021. [Doc. 8]. Defendant replied on August 23, 2021. [Doc. 10]. Having reviewed the record, the briefing, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court will order supplemental briefing on (1) whether the Tenth Circuit recognizes the implication of a property or liberty interest in the disqualification of two horses from a single race and the suspension of Plaintiff’s license for 15 days, see Castanon v. Cathey, 976 F.3d 1136, 1141 (10th Cir. 2020) (“The owners’ arguments fail on the merits because the state racing officials did not deprive the owners of a property or liberty interest.”); and (2) whether Defendant New Mexico Racing Commission is a “person” under § 1983, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (construing a suit against the “Michigan Department of State Police” as a suit against the State of Michigan and finding that a State is not a “person” under § 1983); Conner v. Rodriguez, No. 10-cv-0512 WJ/WDS (D.N.M. Sept. 15, 2010), ECF. No. 20 (dismissing New Mexico Department of Safety because it was immune from suit under § 1983). IT IS ORDERED that Defendant must file supplemental briefing on the above issues no later than October 8, 2021. Plaintiff must file his response no later than October 22, 2021. Defendant may reply no later than November 5, 2021. At the hearing, the Court will hear oral argument on (1) whether Plaintiff's failure to follow Rule 1-075 precludes his present claims; (2) whether the Tenth Circuit recognizes a property or liberty interest that would be implicated by the facts alleged in the Complaint; and (3) whether Defendant is a “person” under § 1983. IT ISSO ORDERED.

wy STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge Presiding by Consent