Hatten-Gonzales v. Scrase

D. New Mexico

Hatten-Gonzales v. Scrase

DecidedMay 2, 2023

Docket1:88-cv-00385

StatusUnknown

This text of Hatten-Gonzales v. Scrase (Hatten-Gonzales v. Scrase) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatten-Gonzales v. Scrase, (D.N.M. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DEBRA HATTEN-GONZALES, et al., Plaintiffs, Vs. Civ. No. 88-0385 KG/GBW Consolidated with Civ. No. 88-786 KG/GBW DAVID R. SCRASE, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant David R. Scrase, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department, filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 1061) with respect to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order directing the parties to conduct a case review (Doc. 1060). Dr. Scrase also filed a Motion to Stay pending appeal (Doc. 1062), which the Court granted with respect to the case review and otherwise denied (Doc. 1069). Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Add Class Representatives (Doc. 1071), and Dr. Scrase responded with a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 1074). While those Motions remain pending, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment (Doc. 1103). It is the Motion to Enforce Judgment that sparked Dr. Scrase’s instant Motion for Stay of All Proceedings (Doc. 1105) and Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 1107). Dr. Scrase seeks a stay of all proceedings until the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the appeal of the case review order and a pending challenge to jurisdiction, or, alternatively, a stay of all briefing on the Motion to Enforce. See generally (Doc. 1105). Dr. Scrase also seeks an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Enforce, and took the liberty of not filing a response to that Motion until the Motion to Stay has been resolved. See generally (Doc. 1107). For the reasons explained herein, the

Motion to Stay (Doc. 1105) is denied and the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 1107) is granted in part. Dr. Scrase will file his response to the Motion to Enforce by 5pm on Friday, May 12, 2023. Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, in the standard time allotted. The Court consider this a Motion to Stay pending appeal, given Dr. Scrase’s request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal. (Doc. 1105) at 1. The purpose of a stay is to preserve the status quo pending appeal. McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 79 F.3d 1014, 1020 (10th Cir. 1996). The Court considers four factors when considering a motion to stay pending appeal: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Dr. Scrase argues that the Tenth Circuit should, in the first instance, decide the jurisdictional question raised in the Motion to Dismiss. He also argues that a stay is in the interest of judicial economy, avoidance of confusion and inconsistent results, and to avoid a burden on the court. The Court notes that Dr. Scrase did not address the factors applicable to a stay. Nonetheless, the Court sees that the same question—jurisdiction—is pending before the Tenth Circuit and this Court. It appears to the Court that the jurisdictional question should be resolved, in the first instance, by this Court, and that it will conserve time and resources to have all material matters fully briefed, including the Motion to Enforce. Dr. Scrase did not make a showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, does not allege that he will be irreparably injured absent a stay, did not address whether a stay would injure the other interested parties, and did not address the public interest. The Court finds that Dr. Scrase will not be irreparably injured absent a stay. While he will incur the time and expense

of responding to the Motion to Enforce, this Court finds that to be an insufficient basis for a stay. Moreover, the Plaintiffs will suffer substantial injury if, in fact, Dr. Scrase and his Department are not in compliance with the Consent Decree and that determination is further delayed. Finally, the public interest lies in determining whether the Human Services Department is complying with the Consent Decree and its obligations under federal law. For these reasons, the Motion to Stay (Doc. 1105) is denied. Dr. Scrase will file his response to the Motion to Enforce by 5pm on Friday, May 12, 2023. Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, in the standard time allotted. In this way, the Motion to Extend (Doc. 1107) is granted in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Poe

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DEBRA HATTEN-GONZALES, et al., Plaintiffs, Vs. Civ. No. 88-0385 KG/GBW Consolidated with Civ. No. 88-786 KG/GBW DAVID R. SCRASE, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant David R. Scrase, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department, filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 1061) with respect to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order directing the parties to conduct a case review (Doc. 1060). Dr. Scrase also filed a Motion to Stay pending appeal (Doc. 1062), which the Court granted with respect to the case review and otherwise denied (Doc. 1069). Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Add Class Representatives (Doc. 1071), and Dr. Scrase responded with a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 1074). While those Motions remain pending, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment (Doc. 1103). It is the Motion to Enforce Judgment that sparked Dr. Scrase’s instant Motion for Stay of All Proceedings (Doc. 1105) and Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 1107). Dr. Scrase seeks a stay of all proceedings until the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the appeal of the case review order and a pending challenge to jurisdiction, or, alternatively, a stay of all briefing on the Motion to Enforce. See generally (Doc. 1105). Dr. Scrase also seeks an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Enforce, and took the liberty of not filing a response to that Motion until the Motion to Stay has been resolved. See generally (Doc. 1107). For the reasons explained herein, the

Motion to Stay (Doc. 1105) is denied and the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 1107) is granted in part. Dr. Scrase will file his response to the Motion to Enforce by 5pm on Friday, May 12, 2023. Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, in the standard time allotted. The Court consider this a Motion to Stay pending appeal, given Dr. Scrase’s request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal. (Doc. 1105) at 1. The purpose of a stay is to preserve the status quo pending appeal. McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 79 F.3d 1014, 1020 (10th Cir. 1996). The Court considers four factors when considering a motion to stay pending appeal: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Dr. Scrase argues that the Tenth Circuit should, in the first instance, decide the jurisdictional question raised in the Motion to Dismiss. He also argues that a stay is in the interest of judicial economy, avoidance of confusion and inconsistent results, and to avoid a burden on the court. The Court notes that Dr. Scrase did not address the factors applicable to a stay. Nonetheless, the Court sees that the same question—jurisdiction—is pending before the Tenth Circuit and this Court. It appears to the Court that the jurisdictional question should be resolved, in the first instance, by this Court, and that it will conserve time and resources to have all material matters fully briefed, including the Motion to Enforce. Dr. Scrase did not make a showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, does not allege that he will be irreparably injured absent a stay, did not address whether a stay would injure the other interested parties, and did not address the public interest. The Court finds that Dr. Scrase will not be irreparably injured absent a stay. While he will incur the time and expense

of responding to the Motion to Enforce, this Court finds that to be an insufficient basis for a stay. Moreover, the Plaintiffs will suffer substantial injury if, in fact, Dr. Scrase and his Department are not in compliance with the Consent Decree and that determination is further delayed. Finally, the public interest lies in determining whether the Human Services Department is complying with the Consent Decree and its obligations under federal law. For these reasons, the Motion to Stay (Doc. 1105) is denied. Dr. Scrase will file his response to the Motion to Enforce by 5pm on Friday, May 12, 2023. Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, in the standard time allotted. In this way, the Motion to Extend (Doc. 1107) is granted in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Poe

Jimmy McClendon A/K/A Billy McClendon Harold Lund Peter Sumatkak David Michael Bauer Carl Ray Lopez Bruce David Morawe Thomas Young Ruthie Duran Deborah Lavera Janelle Roybal Dannette Difiori Maria Sisneros Larry Green Bartel Haley Michael Cote Joe Ray Herrera Josie Kriena Debbie Lucero David Shawkin Marc A. Gillette George Chavez Eliseo Baca Clint Barras Francisco Melendez Samual Herrod Vincent Padilla Carl Duckworth Joseph W. Anderson Paul Johnson Fred Mall Hector Lopez Ricky Rose Herbert King, Sr. James Parks Michael A. Johnson Johnny Vallejos Joe Newberry Darryl Craft Albert Willy William P. Jimmy Augustine Tapia Richard A. Smith Robert Lovato Roy Whatley Marty Begay Martin Valdivia Tallie Thomas Augustine Jackson Donald Hall Carl Sur Steve Esquibel Lonnie Whatley James Saiz Bryon Zamora Allen M. Sawyer Patrick Benny Romero Richard C. Kopecky Phillip Shumate Nelson Romero Steve Johnson Bennie F. Garcia Louie Chavez Brian Salazar Richard Gallegos Larry Stroud James Burks Brad Fischer Amihon Baca Jeff Dillow Pete McQueen Manuel Martinez Arnold Anthony Maestas John Hewatt and All Others Similarly Situated, and Real Parties in Interest, and Em, Rl, Wa, Dj, Ps and Nw, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Intervenors and Real Parties in Interest, and Lawrence A. Johnson, Intervenor v. City of Albuquerque Martin Chavez, Mayor of Albuquerque County of Bernalillo Patrick Baca, Bernalillo County Commissioner Albert Valdez, Bernalillo County Commissioner Eugene Gilbert, Bernalillo County Commissioner Barbara Seward, Bernalillo County Commissioner Jacquelyn Schaefer, Bernalillo County Commissioner Bill Dantis, Director, Bernalillo County Detention Center and Bernalillo County Detention Center Paul Sanchez Frank Lovato Ercell Griffin, Deputy Director, Bcdc Michael Smith, Lieutenant John Van Sickler, Lieutenant Will Bell, Officer Albert Chavez, Lieutenant Richard Fusco, Lieutenant George Fuentes David Baca, Lieutenant Victor Hernandez Kevin D. Sevir Jim Mason, Dr. Barbara Cole Maria Lucero David Royston Felimon Martinez, Captain Stanley Lents Douglas Robinson Seal Barley Lynn King Dave Sherman Brian Maser John Does, Employees of Bernalillo County Detention Center, and v. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico

79 F.3d 1014 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hatten-Gonzales v. Scrase, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatten-gonzales-v-scrase-nmd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack