AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a complaint against the New Mexico Behavioral Health Institute, alleging discrimination that affected her employment and career. The complaint was dismissed by the district court for being time-barred, as the alleged discrimination occurred over twenty years ago.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the statute of limitations should not apply as her employment was interrupted, which continued to affect her career adversely, and sought recusal of Judge Aragon for alleged bias.
• Defendant: Moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the action was time-barred.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's request for recusal of Judge Aragon.
• Whether the Plaintiff's civil rights were violated when she was not allowed to speak at the hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
• Whether the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiff's action is time-barred.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy and concurred by Judges M. Monica Zamora and J. Miles Hanisee, provided several reasons for its decision:
  The Plaintiff did not preserve the issue of Judge Aragon's recusal for review by failing to specify how the alleged bias or conflict of interest was raised in the district court (para 3).
  The Plaintiff's argument regarding the violation of her civil rights for not being allowed to speak at the hearing was dismissed due to lack of specific authority supporting her position and the absence of demonstrated prejudice (paras 4-5).
  The Court agreed with the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was clear from the complaint itself that the action was time-barred, rejecting the Plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to ongoing effects of past discrimination (paras 6-7).