Antoinette Marquez v. Amber Baker-Chavez, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico overruled Antoinette Marquez’s objection to the partial dismissal of her claims against Albuquerque Public Schools. The court upheld dismissal of the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RICO, rejected objections concerning supplemental briefing, Rooker-Feldman, filing restrictions, and defaults, and left the § 1986 claim subject to supplemental briefing. The order also clarified that the court had not dismissed certain state-law claims against Albuquerque Public Schools on Rooker-Feldman grounds.

Holdings

1. The objection to dismissal of Count 1 was overruled because the Fifth Amended Complaint did not allege that an official APS policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional deprivations.
2. The objection to dismissal of Counts 2 and 3 was overruled because the Fifth Amended Complaint did not plausibly allege that APS and the other defendants functioned as a continuing unit with a shared purpose to deprive Marquez of her rights through racketeering activity.
3. The court properly ordered supplemental briefing concerning the § 1986 claim because a supplemental brief is not a supplemental pleading and the court had inherent authority to manage the proceedings.
4. The objection did not establish error in the court's conclusion that Marquez's civil-rights claims were barred by Rooker-Feldman because they were inextricably intertwined with state-court proceedings and the requested relief would undo state-court judgments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the dismissal of Marquez's § 1983 claim against Albuquerque Public Schools should be overruled because the complaint referenced FERPA and APS Policy KB1.
2. Whether the dismissal of the RICO and RICO-conspiracy claims should be overruled where the complaint did not plausibly allege that APS and the other defendants operated as a continuing unit with a shared purpose to commit racketeering activity.
3. Whether the court improperly ordered supplemental briefing concerning the § 1986 claim after partially dismissing other claims.
4. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Marquez's civil-rights claims because they were inextricably intertwined with state-court proceedings and sought relief that would undo state-court judgments.
5. Whether filing restrictions or the alleged untimeliness of other defendants' answers affected the dismissal of Marquez's claims against APS.

Disposition

other