Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02053/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02053-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

THE CITY OF EL PASO, by and through ) 

its Public Service Board; RAY ) 

PEARSON; CARLTON C. HOMAN, JR.; ) 

LOUIE GIALLANZA; CLINTON E. WOLF; ) 

and THOMAS D. WESTFALL, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

FI LED 

United S!ates ~rt of Appeals 

Tenth Cm:ufr 

APR 13 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

S.E. REYNOLDS, individually and as ) 

No. 89-2053 

(D.C. No. 80-730 JP} 

(D. New Mexico) 

State Engineer of New Mexico; HAL ) 

STRATTON, individually and as ) 

Attorney General of New Mexico; and ) 

LALO GARZA, individually and as New ) 

Mexico District Attorney for Dona ) 

Ana County, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

) 

) 

THE TOWN OF ANTHONY, TEXAS, ) 

) 

Interv~nor, ) 

) 

and } 

) 

ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT; ) 

THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO; ) 

and STAHMANN FARMS, INC., ) 

} 

Intervenors-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, BARRETT, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2053 Document: 01019971285 Date Filed: 04/13/1990 Page: 1 
I 

This is an appeal from the district court's denial of the 

City of El Paso's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). After examining the 

parties' briefs, hearing oral arguments, and reviewing the record, 

we affirm. 

The City of El Paso previously challenged the constitutionality of a New Mexico statute which prohibited the transport of 

ground water from New Mexico to another state. See City of El 

Paso v. Reynolds, 563 F. Supp. 379 (D.N.M. 1983). There the court 

held that New Mexico's water embargo statute, N.M. Stat. Ann. S 

72-12-19 (1978) (repealed 1983), violated the Commerce Clause and 

entered an order enjoining defendants from enforcing the statute. 

Id. at 392. The New Mexico State Legislature thus repealed section 72-12-19 and enacted new provisions dealing with the out-ofstate use of water. See N.M. Stat. Ann. S 72-12B-l (1978)~ After 

the legislature's action, the state appealed the district court's 

decision before this court. We vacated Judgment and remanded the 

entire matter to the district court with instructions to determine 

the parties rights and obligations in light of recent changes of 

law and circumstances relevant to the matter. See City of El Paso 

v. Reynolds, No. 83-1350, Order and Judgment at 3 (10th Cir. 

Dec. 16, 1983). On remand, the district court examined the constitutional validity of section 72-12B-l and held that the statute 

discriminated against interstate commerce and was unconstitutional. See City of El Paso v. Reynolds, 597 F. Supp. 694 (D.N.M. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2053 Document: 01019971285 Date Filed: 04/13/1990 Page: 2 
' I • 1984). After entry of final judgment on remand, the New Mexico 

State Legislature passed yet another bill dealing with municipal 

water applications. See N.M. Stat. Ann. S 72-1-9 (1978). Defendant Reynolds, the State Engineer, relied on the provisions of section 72-1-9 to deny El Paso's water permit applications on 

December 23, 1987. 

The City of El Paso requested permission to file a supplemental complaint under the prior case which has been closed since 

the entry of final judgment on August 17, 1984. El Paso contends 

that subsequent action by the State Engineer constitutes a continuation of the discriminatory water embargo policy that was the 

basis of the prior case. 

Rule 15 (d) provides the mechanism for filing supplemental 

pleadings "setting forth transactions or occurrences or events 

which have _happened since the date of the pleading sought to be 

supplemented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The district court has 

broad discretion in determining whether to allow a supplemental 

pleading. Accordingly, we will not disturb the court's decision 

unless there is a "definite and firm conviction that [it] made a 

clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible 

choice in the circumstances." United States v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 

1161, 1164 n.2 (10th Cir. 1986). 

The Supreme Court upheld the filing of an amended supplemental complaint where the same cause of action was plead several 

years after the original complaint challenged racial segregation. 

Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218 (1963). In Griffin, the 

original complaint challenged racial segregation in public schools 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2053 Document: 01019971285 Date Filed: 04/13/1990 Page: 3 
and the supplemental complaint alleged the county avoided desegregation orders by using state and county funds to assist private 

schools while closing down public schools. Id. at 226. In the 

Court's view, the closing of public schools in one county while 

all other public schools remained open throughout the state as 

well as the lack of speed in which this segregation case was being 

adjudicated, created the necessity for the supplemental complaint 

to achieve the orderly and fair administration of justice as 

required by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15 (d). Id. at 225-27. Moreover, 

the order in Griffin clearly contemplated continued supervision. 

Unlike Griffin, the case before us does not embody an issue that 

requires adjudication with deliberate speed, nor does the district 

court's original order contemplate a supervisory role for the 

judiciary. 

The holding in Gillihan v. Shillinger~ 872 F.2d 935 (10th 

Cir. 1989), does not conflict with the result we reach here. We 

affirm the district court's denial of the Motion for Leave to File 

a Supplemental Complaint for the reasons set forth herein and 

those set forth in the district court's memorandum opinion and 

order of January 25, 1989. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2053 Document: 01019971285 Date Filed: 04/13/1990 Page: 4