Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02154/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Bishop
Appellant
John Doe
Appellee
The New Mexico Department of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEPHEN BISHOP, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

FI LED 

United Stares Coon of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!'r:uir 

M.W ,J 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

JOHN DOE 1, public employee who ) 

installed the black pipe speed bag) 

frame at the north facility in the) 

3B exercise pens attached to the ) 

x-pod wall; JOHN DOE 2, public ) 

employee whose scope of duties was ) 

to inspect, repair or cause to be ) 

repaired the black pipe speed bag ) 

frame; JOHN DOE 3, public employee) 

who authorized the installation of ) 

the black speed bag frame in the ) No. 89-2154 

3B exercise pen attached to the ) 

x-pod wall; JOHN DOE 4, public ) 

employee whose scope of duties was ) 

to inspect the building containing) 

x-pod and to repair or cause to be) 

repaired any deficiency in said ) 

building; and THE NEW MEXICO ) 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, as a ) 

state agency and governmental ) 

entity who at all times is ) 

responsible for the designation ) 

of the scope of duties to its ) 

employees for the installation, ) 

inspection, repair for buildings ) 

and equipment under its control ) 

and management, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 88-601-SC) 

Appellate Case: 89-2154 Document: 010110296386 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 1
Stephen Bishop, prose. 

Defendants-appellees elected not to appear. 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.* 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff-appellant, Stephen Bishop, instituted this 

diversity action under 28 u.s.c. § 1332 in the New Mexico federal 

district court, purporting to allege a cause of action under the 

New Mexico Tort Claims Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-4-1 to 41-4-29 

(Repl. Pamp. 1989). According to his complaint, Bishop, while in 

the custody of the New Mexico Department of Corrections, was 

exercising with an improperly installed and maintained "speed bag" 

which disassembled and caused him injury. Upon the defendantsappellees motion, the district court dismissed Bishop's complaint 

as barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the eleventh 

amendment, U.S. Const. amend XI. Our jurisdiction to hear 

Bishop's appeal arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 

The eleventh amendment generally bars lawsuits in federal 

court seeking damages against states as well as against state 

agencies, departments, and employees acting in their official 

capacity. Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvers, Inc., 458 

* After reading the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2154 Document: 010110296386 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 2
U.S. 670, 684 (1982). A state, however, may waive its eleventh 

amendment immunity and consent to suit against itself, related 

entities and employees. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 

(1978). Under its Tort Claims Act, the State of New Mexico has 

consented to suits against its entities and employees acting 

within the scope of their duty for enumerated unintentional torts 

including negligence in the maintenance of machinery and 

equipment. N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-4-4 & 41-4-6 (1989). But that 

consent is limited to actions commenced in the state district 

courts. Section 41-4-lSA of the Act provides: "Exclusive 

original jurisdiction for any claim under the Tort Claims Act 

shall be in the district courts of New Mexico." See also id. 

§ 41-4-4F (nothing in prior subsections shall constitute "waiver 

of the state's immunity from suit in federal court under the 

eleventh amendment"). Cf. Wojciechowski v. Harriman, 607 F. Supp. 

631, 633-35 (D.N.M. 1985) (recognizing that§ 41-4-lSA may limit 

federal court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the state, 

but holding unconstitutional limitation on jurisdiction over 

claims against counties and municipalities unprotected by the 

eleventh amendment). 

Accordingly, Bishop cannot pursue his claim against the New 

Mexico Department of Corrections and its employees acting within 

the scope of their employment in the federal district court, but 

rather is relegated to the state district court to seek relief 

consistent with the limited wai_ver of immunity under § 41-4-18. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2154 Document: 010110296386 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 3
The judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint as 

barred by the eleventh amendment is 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2154 Document: 010110296386 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 4