Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01251/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01251-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rose Candelaria
Appellant
County Of Bernalillo
Not Party
State of New Mexico
Not Party
The City of Albuquerque
Appellee
The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LEO 

United St~ttit Come of Appeals 

Tenth Clrroit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel ROSE ) 

CANDELARIA, as Personal Representative ) 

of the Estate of Billy Candelaria, ) 

deceased, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

ROSE CANDELARIA, as Personal ) 

Representative of the Estate of ) 

Billy Candelaria, deceased, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

) 

THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE; THE MIDDLE ) 

RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 87-1251 

(D.C. No. 82-1277SC) 

(Dist. of N.M.) 

Before McKAY, BARRETT and ANDERSON, 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: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The court ordered that the 

case be submitted on the briefs in open court on March 6, 1990. 

Rose Candelaria (Candelaria), as personal representative of 

the estate of her deceased son, Billy Candelaria, appeals from (1) 

a Memorandum Opinion and related Order of the district court, 

both dated November 24, 1986, dismissing that portion of her 

complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 

1985, and (2) an Order of the district court dated January 30, 

1987, dismissing that portion of her complaint alleging pendent 

state claims. 

Candelaria brought this action after her son, Billy, drowned 

on September 4, 1981, in a siphon culvert for the Arenal Acequia, 

an irrigation canal located in South Valley, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. Candelaria sued the City of Albuquerque, the County of 

Bernalillo, New Mexico, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 

District, alleging that Billy's death violated his civil rights 

under §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. Candelaria also alleged separate 

counts of federal common law nuisance, state common law nuisance, 

attractive nuisance, and common law negligence. Candelaria sought 

compensatory damages of $22,000,000.00, punitive damages of 

$22,000,000.00, the abatement of a public nuisance by requiring 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 2 
that the siphon culvert be properly maintained, and attorney fees. 

The City, County, and Conservancy District answered and moved to 

dismiss. 

On March 12, 1984, the district court dismissed Candelaria's 

complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) finding that it failed to allege ----

i ntentional discrimination as required under§§ 1981, 1983, and 

1985, and that it failed to allege a conspiracy as required under 

§ 1985 . The court also dismissed the pendent state claims without 

prejudice. (R., Vol. I, Tab 52, p. 8). 

Candelaria appealed the dismissal of her federal claims. On 

appeal we reversed and remanded, holding, inter alia: 

While the complaint is susceptible to the construction given it by the district court, it is just as 

reasonably susceptible to the interpretation offered by 

the plaintiffs. Namely it alleges that the defendants 

discriminated against an area of the city , predominantly 

occupied by Mexican-Americans because it is occupied by 

Mexican-Americans. In fact, the statement that "a 

racial and ethnic discrimination exiits" can hardly be 

interpreted as meaning anything but purpos~ful 

discrimination. If these allegations are proved, 

plaintiff would have a cognizable civil rights claim 

under section 1983 ••• • 

In addition, we conclude that the district court 

erred in finding that the complaint contained no allega- tion of conspiracy ••• Plaintiff's single reference to 

concerted action sufficiently alleged a conspiracy to 

meet the pleading requirement. 

State of New Mexico, ex rel Candelaria v. City of Albuquerque, 768 

F.2d 1207, 1209-1210 (10th Cir. 1985). 

Following remand and complete discovery, the City of 

Albuquerque, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, and County of 

Bernalillo moved for summary judgment, alleging, inter alia, that 

there was no evidence that the defendants purposefully 

d i scriminated against Hispanics in the maintenance of the ditches 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 3 
and culverts in South Valley. The district court considered the 

pleadings, depositions, affidavits and exhibits. On November 24, 

1986 the district court entered a Memorandum Opinion granting 

summary judgment in favor of the City, County, and Conservancy 

District, ruling: 

Whatever conception Plaintiff has of what the law 

ought to be, this Court is bound to apply the law as it 

is, and the law requires Plaintiff to prove intent to 

discriminate as an element of each of her civil rights 

claims. After four years of litigation and complete 

discovery, Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence 

which might tend to prove the requisite intent. 

(R. Vol. I, Tab 115, p. 14). 

On January 30, 1987, the district court also entered an Order 

dismissing Candelaria's pendent state claims. Within that Cider, 

the court found that the "pendent state claims will not be 

considered since they are not pending before this Court, said 

claims having been dismissed on March 12, 1984, and no appeal 

having been taken from said dismissal." (R. Vol . . I, Tab 122, p. 

1) • 

On appeal, Candelaria contends that the district court erred 

in: (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants/ 

appellees and dismissing her federal claims under§§ 1981, 1983, 

and 1985, and (2) dismissing her pendent state claims. 

We view the district court's excellent Memorandum Opinion of 

November 24, 1986, and subsequent Orders as sound and convincing. 

We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment 

dismissing Candelaria's federal claims under SS 1981, 1983, and 

1985 and the dismissal of Candelaria's pendent state claims for 

substantially the well stated 

-4-

reasons set forth in the 

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 4 
district court's Memorandum Opinion of November 24, 1986, the 

Order of November 24, 1986, and the Order of January 30, 1987, 

copies of which are attached hereto . 

-5-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

United States Judge 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 5 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO lNl'ED STATES DISTRICT eotm 

SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. 

ROSE CANDELARIA, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate 

of Billy Candelaria, deceased, 

and ROSE CANDELARIA, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Billy Candelaria, deceased, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, THE 

M-IDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY 

DISTRICT, and THE BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF 

BERNALILLO, 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

NOV 2 4 1986 

&-,A, ..... 1 .... -.... 

No. CIV-82-1377 SC 

This suit arises from the drowning death of Billy Candelaria, 

an 11 year-old boy. Billy fell into the Arenal Acequia in Albuquerque 

and was allegedly trapped in debris clogging the -syphon culvert under 

Goff Road Southwest. Plaintiff alleges in claims brought under 42 

u.s.c. SS 1981, 1983, and 1985(3) that the decedent's civil rights 

were violated because each of the Defendants intentionally refused 

to perform a duty to maintain the culvert because the culvert is in 

an area predominantly populated by poor Hispanic people. The Complaint 

also contains claims under state tort law for attractive nuisance 

and negligence and under N.M.Stat.Ann. S 30-8-8 (1984 Repl. Pamp.) 

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 6 
for abatement of a public nuisance.!/ The state law claims are 

brought under the Court's pendent jurisdiction. 

This case was dismissed by the Court on the Defendants' Motions 

to Dismiss on March 12, 1984.1/ The Court's ruling was appealed to 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit reversed and 

remanded. New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. Albuquerque, 768 F.2d 

1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 1985). The matter is presently before the 

Court on Motions for Summary Judgment filed by each of the Defendants. 

The Court finds that summary judgment should be granted in favor of 

the County on all claims and in favor of the City and Conservancy 

District on the claims brought under 42 u.s.c. S§ 1981, 1983 and 

1985(3). The Court further concludes that it shall not exercise its 

pendent jurisdiction over the claim for abatement of a public nusiance. 

The Court will include in its Order entered herewith the statement 

required under 28 u.s.c. S 1292(b} and Fed. R. App. P. 5(a) so that, 

if she wishes, Plaintiff may take an interlocutory appeal of this 

Order, thereby avoiding the possibility of piecemeal litigation. If 

.!/The Complaint also included afederal common law nuisance count 

which was dismissed by the Court-TM sponte because it lacked any 

foundation in present day federal law. See New Mexico ex rel. 

Candelaria v. Albuquerque, No. CV-82-1377-C~em. op. at 3 (Apr. Is, 

1983). That ruling was not challenged in the Court of Appeals. 

1/see New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. Albuquerque, No. CV-82-

1377-C, mem. op. and order (~arch 12, 1984). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 7 
Plaintiff files a notice of appeal within 10 days of the date of entry 

of such order, the Court shall stay these proceedings until resolution 

of the appeal. Otherwise, the Court will move forward with the other 

claims herein presented. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only when 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56; Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). The burden 

of establishing that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact 

is on the movant. Adickes, 398 U.S. at 157. That burden "may be 

discharged by 'showing' - that is, pointing out to the District Court 

- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmov ing 

party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catr·ett, 54 U.S.L.W. 4775, 4778 

(U.S. June 25, 1986). Summary judgment is proper against a party 

"who fails to make a showing suffici~nt to establish tbe existence of 

an essential element to that party's case, and on which that party 

will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 4777. The facts 

must, however, be construed in favor of the nonmovant, and the Court 

must consider inferences that can be drawn from those facts tending 

to show triable issues. Buell Cabinet Co., Inc. v. Sudduth, 608 

F.2d 431, 433 (10th Cir. 1979); Luckett v. Bethlehem st·eel Corp., 

618 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir. 1980). 

FACTS 

In deciding these Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court 

considered the affidavits, exhibits and deposition excerpts presented 

by the parties in connection with their motions and responses and 

with their previous motions to dismiss and responses thereto. The 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 8 
Court also requested and did review in their entirety all depositions 

taken by any party in this case. Through those depositions and the 

materials presented by counsel throughout the history of this case, 

the record before this Court reflects the following f~cts. 

The Arenal Acequia is part of a network of irrigation ditches 

owned and operated by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. 

The area in which the Arenal Acequia goes under Goff Road is part of 

the area known as the South Valley. The area is within the County 

of Bernalillo, but is outside the basic boundaries of the City of 

Albuquerque. However, in 1965 the City of Albuquerque annexed Goff 

Road and some other nearby streets, primarily for the purpose of 

providing City water and sewer services to some of the public schools 

in the area which are a part of the Albuquerque Public School system. 

Sew~r and water lines run underneath these streets. There(ore, Goff 

Road, where it crosses the Arenal Acequia, is within the City of 

Albuquerque. 

There has been long standing disagreement between the Middle 

Rio Grande Conservancy District and the governmental entities whose 

roads cross the Conservancy District's ditches as to who should 

maintain the culverts that pass under these roads. Plaintiff alleges 

that the result of this disagreement is that the culverts, particularly 

the culvert under Goff Road, are not maintained by anyone. 

The City presented a schedule of eighty-two culverts which it 

has, at some time in the past, maintained. Eighty of those are in 

the northwest quadrant of the Albuquerque and two are in the southwest 

quadrant. The Goff Road culvert is not on the City's schedule. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 9 
However, Ernest H. Romero, the Conservancy District ditch rider 

who patrols the Arenal Acequia, states in his affidavit that he 

regularly inspects and maintains the Arenal Acequia and whenever he 

encounters clogging of a crossing or any other dangerous condition, 

he takes •whatever measures are necessary to solve the problem.• 

The evidence on which Plaintiff relies to dispute that the the culvert 

is maintained is the affidavit of H.J. O'Dell, Jr., attached to the 

Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Extend Time Limit for 

Filing Response to City of Albuquerque's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Until Completion of Further Discovery. Mr. O'Dell's statements 

regarding the maintenance of the culvert are based entirely on hearsay 

and encompais matters clearly outside the personal knowledge of the 

affiant. As such, Mr~ O'Dell's statements are not proper, competent 

evidence on the issue of whether the culvert is maintained. However, 

the Court finds that a genuine issue of fact as to whether the culvert 

was maintained is raised by the photographs of the culvert. Those 

photographs show a substantial amount of debris and indicate that 

the culvert is in a state of disrepair possibly inconsistent with 

Mr. Romero's assertion that the culvert is regularly maintained. 

On September 4, 1981 Billy Candelaria and another 11 year-old 

boy, Johnny Sanchez, were playing in or near the Arenal Acequia, 

just upstream from the culvert under Goff Road. The Goff Road culvert 

is a syphon culvert in which a drop in the level of the ditch floor 

creates suction which moves the water through the culvert quickly. 

Plaintiff's theory of the case is that Billy was drawn by this suction 

and could not prevent himself from being sucked into the culvert. 

There were no safety devices along the culvert which Billy might 

-sAppellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 10 
have used to pull himself out of the quickly flowing water or to which 

he could have hung on until help arrived. Plaintiff further theorizes 

that Billy became trapped in the debris inside the Goff Road culvert 

and drowned there. Johnny Sanchez stood on the outflow side of the 

culvert for some time after Billy went under, waiting for Billy to 

come out. Billy's body was recovered nearly a half mile downstream 

about three hours after he went under the water. 

OPINION 

I. Ci vi 1 Rights Claims. Plaintiff claims that Defendants, 

individually and in concert, intentionally discriminated against the 

Plaintiff's decedent by refusing to perform the same governmental 

services in the South Valley as provided in other areas because, 

Plaintiff alleges, the South Valley is primarily populated by poor 

persons of Hispanic descent. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that the 

only elements needed to prove her case are that the syphon culvert 

was not maintained, that the South Valley is generally populated by 

poor persons of Spanish or Mexican descent, and that Billy Candelaria 

drowned in the Arenal Acequia. Plaintiff maintains that there is 

at least a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to each of 

those elements. However, Plaintiff overlooked at least one essential 

element for which she has not met her burden under Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 54 U.S.L.W. 4775 (U.S. June 25, 1986). In order to prevail 

on her civil rights claims under any of the proferred statutes, 

Plaintiff must prove that Defendants acted with the intent to 

discriminate. Therefore, in order to defeat summary judgment, 

Plaintiff must present evidence of intent so as to create a genuine 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 11 
issue of material fact. The record before this Court is barren of 

such evidence. 

A. The Intent Requirement. 

1. Section 1981. Section 1981 requires, as one of 

the elements of Plaintiff's case, proof that Defendants acted with 

the intent to discriminate. New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. 

Albuquerque, 768 F. 2d at 1208-09; General Building Contractor's 

Assoc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 388-89 (1982). 

2. Section 1983. Like S 1981, S 1983 reaches only 

those claims arising from intentional discrimination. New Mexico 

ex rel. Candelaria v. Albuquerque, 768 F.2d at 1208-09. Section 

1983 was enacted to enforce the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth 

Amendment. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 238-39 (1972). 

Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is based on a violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Proof of raciallyl/ 

discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of 

the Equal Protection Clause. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan 

Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). 

3. Section 1985(3). As the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals pointed out in New Mexico ex rel. Candelaria v. Albuquerque, 

768 F.2d at 1209, it is not firmly established in this circuit that 

l/Discrimination on the basis of Hispanic national or1g1n is 

violative of a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of 

race. Manzanares v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 593 F.2d 968, 971-72 (10th 

Cir. 1979). 

-7-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 12 
intent to discriminate must be proved in a S 1985(3) claim brought 

against state actors. However, the Supreme Court stated that in such 

a case the Plaintiff must allege and prove that the Defendants acted 

with •some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously 

discriminatory animus.• Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 

C 1971). • Invidiously discriminatory animus• connotes purposefulness, 

and the language has been construed by numerous courts as descriptive 

of the intent to discriminate. Taylor v. St. Louis, 702 F.2d 695, 

697 (8th Cir. 1983); McIntosh v. Arkansas Republican Party - Frank 

White Election Committee, 766 F.2d 337, 340 (8th Cir. 1985); Morgan 

v. District of Columbia, 550 F. Supp. 465, 470 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd 

without opinion, 725 F.2d 125 (D.C.Cir. 1983); In re Jackson 

Lockdown/MCO Cases, 568 F. Supp. 869, 880-882 CE.D. Mich. 1983). 

Further, the Supreme Court uses the phrase "invidious diicriminatory 

purpose• interchangably with "intent• when it describes the state 

of mind required for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 

~ Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266; Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 

at 242. 

Moreover, while the Tenth Circuit has not specifically ruled 

that intent is required under S 1985(3), it has held that under 

Griffin an element of a S 1985(3) claims is a purpose to deprive any 

person of the equal protection of the law or of the privileges and 

immunities under the law. Fisher v. Shamburg, 624 F.2d 156, 158 

(10th Cir. 1980). The purpose described in Fisher must encompass 

an intent to discriminate. Since Equal Protection protects only 

against intentional discrimination, one who sets forth with the 

-8-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 13 
purpose of depriving someone of Equal Protection must necessarily 

act with the intent to discriminate. 

B. Evidence of Intent. Determining whether invidious 

discriminatory purpose motivated Defendants demands a •sensitive 

inquiry into such circumstantial and direct eviden~e of intent as 

may be available.• Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing 

Development Corp., 429 U.S. at 266. Factors that should be considered 

include the historical background of the act or, in this case, the 

failure to act, the sequence of events preceding the failure to act, 

departures from the normal procedural sequence, and the legislative 

or administrative history, if applicable. Id. at 267-68. While it 

is not the Court's task in deciding a motion for summary judgment 

to weigh those factors and decide factual issues, the Court is mindful 

of the relevant factors in searching the record for evidence which 

mnight present a genuine issue of material fact. 

Also relevant, although not dispositive, is the impact of the 

official inaction, that is, whether it bears more heavily on one 

race than another. Id. at 266. This disparate impact must, if it is 

to raise a genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry 

of summary judgment against the Plaintiff, be substantial enough that 

a reason.able person could infer from the extent of the disparity that 

it must be the result of intent to discriminate because it cannot 

be explained in any other way. Id.; Personnel Admin. of Massachusets 

v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 (1979); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 

229, 242--14 ( 1976). In other words, official action that has a 

disproportionate impact on a racial minority violates the Equal 

Protection Clause "only if that impact can be traced to a 

-9-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 14 
discriminatory purpose.• Personnel Admin. of Massachusets v. Feeney, 

442 U.S. at 272. 

The Equal Protection standards which are relevant to Plaintiff's 

S 1983 claims also apply to her S 1981 claim. Craig v. Los Angeles, 

626 F.2d 659, 668 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919 (1981). 

By analogy, the same would hold true for Plaintiff's conspiracy claim 

under S 1985(3). 

The direct evidence before the Court all tends to establish 

that the Defendants, in failing to maintain the Goff Road culvert, 

did not act with the intent to discriminate. Defendants presented 

affidavits of various City, County, and Conservancy District officials 

stating that they did not act with intent to discriminate. With 

regard to maintenance of culverts, ditches and roads, as well as to 

all other services provided, the evidence shows that Defendants do 

not treat the Arenal Acequia area any differently than they treat 

other areas within their respective jurisdictions, except that the 

City does provide some extra services to the South Valley, including 

a municipal swimming pool, even though the area is outside the City 

and therefore not entitled to receive such services. Indeed, most 

of the evidence concerning impact of Defendants' policies and actions 

on the South Valley indicates that the area is favored rather than 

discriminated against. See the affidavits of Frank Kleinhenz and 

Martin Valdez. 

Even Plaintiff's own witness, Mr. O'Dell, indicated that as to 

the maintenance of ditches, the South Valley and the North Valley 

are treated similarly. Mr. O'Dell testified in his deposition that 

he had investigated an accident which occurred as the result of a 

-10-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 15 
broken syphon culvert under Rio Grande Boulevard in Albuquerque's 

North Valley area. (O'Dell deposition at 107.) Mr. O'Dell indicated 

that during the course of his investigation of that accident he found 

the same lack of service to the crossings of roads over Conservancy 

District ditches in the North Valley as-· he found in the South Valley. 

(O'Dell deposition at 170.) Mr. O'Dell's testimony is further 

evidence that there is no disparate treatment in maintaining culverts. 

The only bit of evidence which indicates, even to the slightest 

degree, that the Defendants' refusal to maintain the culverts impacts 

disparately on different areas is the City's schedule of culverts 

on which it has performed maintenance on in the past • . This list is 

attached as Exhibit 11 to the deposition of Edmund G. Archuleta. 

According to the testimony of Mr. Archuleta, this list was prepared by 

a City line maintenance employee in late 1978 or early 1979. The 

list identifies eighty-two culverts on which maintenance has been 

performed by the City during some unspecified period of time, going 

back for Ryears and years.R Eighty of the listed culverts are in 

the North Valley and two are in the South Valley. The list was 

prepared in anticipation of a meeting between the City and the 

Conservancy District which Mr. Archuleta hoped would lead to the 

resolution of their ongoing dispute over who was responsible for 

maintenance. 

resolved. 

An initial meeting was held, but the issue was not 

Mr. Archuleta was not certain how the listed culverts came to 

be serviced, but he thought they may have been singled out because 

someone specifically told the City Public Works Department to remedy 

a particular problem with a particular culvert at a particular time. 

-11-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 16 
(Archuleta deposition at 35.) The're is no indication in his testimony 

that the City regularly maintained these or any other culverts. 

The Court finds that, as a matter of law, the evidence relating 

to the eighty-two culverts is insuff icent under the standards 

discussed above to raise an inference that the City acted with 

discriminatory intent in the manner in which it maintained culverts. 

C. Summary Judgment on the Issue of Intent. Although not 

argued by Plaintiff, the Court is fully aware of the numerous cases 

which hold that questions of intent, because they so often turn on 

credibility and are so often resolved by the inferences which can 

be drawn from the circumstances of the case, are seldom proper 

questions for resolution on a motion for summary judgment. See, 

~, Baum v. Gillman, 648 F.2d 1292, 1295-96 (10th Cir. 1981); 

Fisher v. Shamburg, 624 F.2d 156, 162 (10th Cir. 1980) ;- Prochaska v. 

Marcoux, 632 F.2d 848, 851 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 

984 (1981); Tovar v. Billmey~r, 721 F.2d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1983), 

cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 223. However, a review of the cases further 

demonstrates that occasionally there is a case in which summary 

judgment can and should be granted even though intent is the critical 

issue. First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 

U. S. 253, 289-90 (1968); Midwestern Waffles, Inc. v. Waffle House, 

Inc., 734 F.2d 705, 717 (11th Cir. 1984); Brown v. Trans World 

Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 1354, 1359 (8th Cir. 1984); Aydin Corp. v. 

Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 901 (9th Cir. 1983). See also Singer v. 

Wadman, 745 F.2d 606, 608 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 s.ct. 

1396. 

-12-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 17 
This is such a case. Plaintiff has not only failed to produce 

any evidence which would tend to rebut Defendants' affidavits, 

Plaintiff has further failed to produce evidence of any circumstances 

which might, even given the most expansive interpretation, support 

an inference that any of the Defendants acted with the intent to 

discriminate. Regardless of the nature of the issue presented, 

summary judgment is inappropriate only when reasonable minds could 

draw different inferences from the undisputed facts. Houghton v. 

Foremost Financial Services Corp., 724 F.2d 112, 114 (10th Cir. 

1983)~ Thomas v. United States Department of Energy, 719 F.2d 342, 

344 {10th Cir. 1983). In this case ~laintiff has presented nothing 

but conclusory allegations to support her ·claims. Conclusory 

allegations are not enough to establish an issue of fact. Bruce v. 

Marietta Corp., 544 F.2d 442, 445 {10th Cir. 1976). Likewise, no 

factual inferences can be drawn from the allegations themselves. 

The Court will not strain to find the existence of a genuine issue 

of material fact where none exists. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Devalk 

Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 600 F. Supp. 1547, 1549 {N.D. Ill. 1985). 

Moreover, the standard for granting summary judgment •mirrors" 

the standard for granting a directed verdict under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. SO{a). Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 54 U.S.L.W. at 4777. If 

-13-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 18 
Plaintiff were able to produce at trial admissible evidence.!/ 

identical to the evidence presented to the Court in conjunction with 

these motions, the Court could not, under the standards of Rule 

S0(a), allow the civil rights claimsi/ to go to the jury. There is 

simply no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer intent 

to discriminate on the part of any of the Defendants. 

Whatever conception Plaintiff has of what the law ought to be, 

this Court is bound to apply the law as it is, and the law requires 

Plaintiff to prove intent to discriminate as an element of each of 

her civil rights claims. After four years of litigation and complete 

discovery, Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence which might 

tend to prove the requisite intent. Summary judgment cannot be 

defeated by the vague hope that something will turn up at trial. 

National Bank of North America v. Quest, 425 F. Supp. 186, 190 

(E.D.N. Y. 1977.). Denial of summary judgment would serve only to 

force Defendants to defend this suit on theories for which Plaintiff 

~/The Court questions whether some of .the evidence produced by 

Plaintiff could be produced at trial in admissible form. For example, 

the affidavits of Mr. O'Dell, Plaintiff's private investigator, 

consist largely of hearsay and legal conclusions which would, upon 

proper objection, be excluded at trial. 

ilThe Court does not mean to imply that the tort claims would go 

to the jury on the evidence now before the Court. The question is 

not before the Court and the Court makes no ruling in that regard. 

-14-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 19 
has demonstrated that she can produce no proof. Such a result would 

violate the sound policies which underlie Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Summary 

judgment is, therefore, proper in this case. 

II. Bernalillo County's Duty to Maintain the Culvert. The 

only evidence Plaintiff has presented to support her contention that 

the County has any obligation to maintain the Goff Road culvert is 

the deposition and affidavit of Mr. O'Dell. As discussed elsewhere 

in this Opinion, Mr. O'Dell's statements are based entirely on 

hearsay, not on personal knoweldge, and reach ultimate legal 

conclusions which he is not qualified to make. The Court will, 

accordingly, not consider Mr. O'Dell's conclusion that the County had 

a duty to maintain the culvert as evidence. 

The County did not own the ditch that passed through the culvert 

or the road that crossed over the culvert. By statute the County has 

a duty to maintain public highways within the County except for those 

highways within the limits of any incorporated city or town or owned 

and operated by any private corporations. N.M.Stat.Ann. S 67-2-2 

(1978). As discussed above, Goff Road was annexed by the City in 

1965 and the relevant portion of Goff Road is within the City limits. 

Therefore, under the statute, the County has no duty to maintain 

Goff Road, and cannot be held liable for failing to do so. 

III. Pendent Jurisdiction Over State Claims. The state claims 

were brought under the Court's pendent jurisdiction. These state 

claims were not challenged in Defendants' Motions · for Summary 

Judgment. However, having dismissed all Plaintiff's federal claims 

the Court finds it prudent to consider,~ sponte, its jurisdiction 

over the remaining state claims. These claims are for abatement of 

-15-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 20 
nuisance and .for damages under the theories of attractive nuisance 

and common law negligence. The Court finds that it should exercise 

its discretionary jurisdiction over the negligence and attractive 

nuisance claims, but not over the abatement of public nuisance claim. 

A. Negligence and Attractive Nuisance Claims. Exercise 

of the Court's pendent jurisidiction is a matter within the sound 

discretion of the Court. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 

383 u.s. 715, 726 (1966). At least two circuits have held that it is 

an abuse of the Court's discretion to decline to exercise pendent 

jurisdiction over state claims which have, during the pendency of 

the federal litigation, become time barred by the applicable statute 

of limitations, even where all federal claims have been dismissed 

from the federal court proceedings. Emory v. Peeler, 756 F.2d 1547, 

1555 (11th Cir. 1985); Pharo v. Smith, 625 F.2d 1226, 1227 (5th Cir. 

1980). Id. The Court finds these decisions persuasive. 

Plaintiff's decedent drowned on September 4, 1981. The statute 

of limitations for actions under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, 

which provides the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff's tort claims, is 

two years. N.M.Stat.Ann. S 41-4-15 (1986 Repl. Pamp.) The statute 

of limitations for other tort claims is three years. N.M.Stat.Ann. S 

37-1-8 (1978). The New Mexico courts will not toll the running of 

the statute of limitations for the period during which litigation 

is pending in federal court. Estate of Blas Guiterrez v. Bernalillo 

County Detention Center, The State Bar of New Mexico's News and 

Views, Vol.25, No. 22 (May 29, 1986). Therefore, while this action 

has been pending in this Court, Plaintiff has lost her right to bring 

her tort claims in state court. Accordingly, the Court shall exercise 

-16-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 21 
• 

its pendent jurisdiction over the negligence and attractive nuisance 

claims.!/ 

B. Abatement of Nuisance Claim. Plaintiff's action for 

abatement of a public nuisance claim stands in a different position. 

Plaintiff asserts that the nuisance allegedly created by the 

Defendants' alleged failure to maintain the Goff Road culvert 

continues today and, indeed, if the nuisance did not continue, the 

action would be moot. Therefore, the claim is not time barred. 

Moreover, the Court believes that this action, brought in the name 

of the State of New Mexico against state agencies is a claim which, as 

a matter of policy, is more properly resolved by a state court. The 

Court will, therefore, decline to exercise its pendent jurisdiction 

over this claim. 

CONCLUSION 

An essential element of Plaintiff's case under 42 u.s.c. §§ 

1981, 1983 and 1985(3) is that the Defendants acted with the intent 

to discriminate. All the evidence presented in connection with these 

motions, and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from that 

evidence, indicates that Defendants had no intent to discriminate. 

Therefore, there is no genuine issue of fact as to Defendants' intent 

and summary judgment over Plaintiff's SS 1981, 1983 and 1985(3) 

claims is proper. 

ilThe Court does not herein decide whether Plaintiff can bring 

an attractive nuisance claim against these Defendants under New 

Mexico tort law. 

-17-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 22 
• 

. . 

No genuine issue of material facts exists as to the County of 

Bernalillo's duty to maintain the culvert which is the subject of 

this lawsuit. Summary judgment in favor of the County is proper on 

all claims. 

Notwithstanding the dismissal of all federal claims from this 

case, the Court will exercise its pendent jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff's tort claims because Plaintiff is time barred from bringing 

those claims in state court. The Court will not, however, exercise 

jurisdiction over the action for abatement of a public nuisance. 

An Order in conformity with this Opinion shall be entered 

herewith. 

-18-

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 23 
. ' 

• 

, l (p 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FILED 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. 

ROSE CANDELARIA, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate 

of Billy Candelaria, deceased, 

and ROSE CANDELARIA, a Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Billy Candelaria, deceased, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, THE 

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY 

DISTRICT, and THE BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF 

BERNALILLO, 

Defendants. 

OlmER 

UNl1ID STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SANTA FE. NEW MEXICO 

NOV 2 4 1986 

c9--.A ..... tam"") 

No. CV-82-1377-SC 

ENTERED ON D'JCKIT II- :J--'f- la. 

In accordance with the views expressed in the Memorandum Opinion 

filed herewith, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that summary judgment is granted in favor 

of all Defendants on the civil rights claims brought by Plaintiff 

under 42 u.s.c. SS 1981, 1983, and 1985(3). The first count of the 

Complaint entitled "Count in 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983 and 1985" 

is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is granted in favor 

of the Defendant, the Board of County Commissioners of the County 

of Bernalillo, on all claims made against it. The Complaint against 

the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo is, 

therefore, dismissed with prejudice. 

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 24 
• 

... 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim for abatement of 

a public nuisance is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 

The Court further states, in accordance with 28 u.s.c. S 1292(b) 

and Fed.R.App.P. S(a), that the Court is of the opinion that this 

Order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is 

substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate 

appeal from the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination 

of the litigation. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if an appeal of this Order is taken 

within ten days from the date of entry of this Order, these proceedings 

shall be stayed pending resolution of that appeal. 

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 25 
• 

/' - . 

! -• , 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. 

ROSE CANDELARIA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

FILED 

UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURl 

SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 

JAN 3 o 1987 

vs. No. CIV-82-1317 SC 

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, et al., 

Defendants. 

0 RD BR 

1987. 

THIS MATTER came on for hearing before the Court on January 29, 

The Court, having considered the facts of record and the 

arguments of counsel, announced its findings of fact and its decision 

in open court. In accordance with those findings and decision, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' pendent state claims will not 

be considered since they are not pending before this Court, said 

claims having been dismissed on March 12, 1984, and no appeal having 

been taken from said dismissal. 

Appellate Case: 87-1251 Document: 01019971614 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 26