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 case involves a lawsuit filed under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act (NMCRA) against the City of Roswell, a municipality in Chaves County, New Mexico. The plaintiffs allege civil rights violations resulting from the fatal shooting of an individual by Roswell police officers. The lawsuit was filed in the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe County, raising the issue of whether the venue was proper under the NMCRA (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court: The district court denied the City of Roswell's motion to dismiss the lawsuit for improper venue, interpreting Section 41-4A-3(B) of the NMCRA as allowing the action to be maintained in any New Mexico district court (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (City of Roswell): Argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed for improper venue, asserting that under Section 38-3-2, the lawsuit could only be brought in the Fifth Judicial District in Chaves County, where the City is located (para 3).
- Real Parties in Interest (Plaintiffs): Contended that Section 41-4A-3(B) of the NMCRA allows them to maintain the action in any New Mexico district court, including Santa Fe County (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Whether Section 41-4A-3(B) of the NMCRA is a venue provision allowing plaintiffs to sue a municipality in any district court in the state.
- Whether Section 38-3-2 governs venue for NMCRA claims filed against a municipality.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that Section 41-4A-3(B) establishes jurisdiction in district courts over NMCRA claims and is not a venue provision.
- The Court directed the district court to dismiss the lawsuit for improper venue, applying Section 38-3-2 to govern venue for NMCRA claims against a municipality (para 20).
Reasons
Per Thomson, Chief Justice (Vigil, Bacon, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The Court exercised its original jurisdiction to issue a writ of superintending control, finding that the issue of venue under the NMCRA presented a question of substantial public interest. The Court determined that Section 41-4A-3(B) is not a venue provision because it lacks the essential features of one, such as specifying counties where venue is proper. Instead, it establishes jurisdiction in district courts for NMCRA claims. The Court concluded that Section 38-3-2, which governs venue for civil actions against municipalities, applies to NMCRA claims, requiring the lawsuit to be filed in the county where the municipality is located (paras 5-19).