University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name McClendon v. City of Albuquerque JC-NM-0002
Docket / Court 6:95-cv-00024-JAP-KBM ( D.N.M. )
State/Territory New Mexico
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Jail Conditions
Special Collection Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Attorney Organization NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Case Summary
On January 10, 1995, inmates at the Bernalillo County Detention Center (BCDC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiffs sued the BCDC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that the gross overcrowding at ... read more >
On January 10, 1995, inmates at the Bernalillo County Detention Center (BCDC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiffs sued the BCDC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that the gross overcrowding at BCDC was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief. On February 16, 1995, the plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the operation of the BCDC in its present condition.

The parties engaged in abbreviated discovery related to overcrowding in preparation for a hearing on the preliminary injunction. A day before the hearing, U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez made an unannounced visit to the jail. On August 23, 1995, Judge Vazquez granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to reduce the population at the BCDC. From the start, the defendants had conceded that crowding was a problem, and the preliminary injunction largely adopted the defendants’ own population reduction proposal. The injunction included a schedule of decreasing population caps for the BCDC and detailed conditions concerning daily operation of the facility. The order also required that inmates with psychological impairments be housed separately from the general population of the jail until a qualified mental health professional issued a written report stating a resident with a psychological impairment could safely live in general population.

On September 7, 1995, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which the district court approved. The agreement converted the preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction and, among other things, required defendants to comply with their existing policies regarding medical, dental and psychological services and access to a reasonably current law library. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce or modify the injunction, but expressly reserved any ruling on whether conditions at the BCDC were unconstitutional.

On September 6, 1995 (the day before entry of the settlement), lawyers working for the New Mexico Protection & Advocacy System and the American Civil Liberties Union moved to intervene on behalf of a proposed subclass of all present and future residents of BCDC with mental and/or developmental disabilities. On October 26, 1995, the district court granted "limited intervention" to the plaintiff-intervenors. Intervention was limited to matters “before the court by virtue of the original Plaintiffs' Complaint.”

On November 22, 1995, the plaintiff-intervenors filed an amended complaint in intervention on behalf of the proposed subclass. It alleged discrimination by defendants against people with mental and/or developmental disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution; violations of female subclass members' right to Equal Protection; and violations of procedural due process, access to the courts, and the Eighth Amendment.

Following the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996, which imposed specific requirements regarding prospective relief in all prison conditions cases and allowed for the termination of existing remedial orders, the City and County moved to terminate the remedial decrees that had been entered in 1995 and 1996. This termination motion was resolved in November 1996, when the court approved two settlement agreements and adopted them as consent decrees. In the first of these (the "PLRA Order"), the court found that violations of one or more federal rights of BCDC residents had occurred at BCDC. The court also required defendants to implement remedial measures designed to address the needs of inmates with mental illness and/or mental disabilities, particularly with regard to the diagnosis and medical treatment of those inmates. The court approved both of the 1996 settlements after holding a fairness hearing under FRCP Rule 23(e) on January 10, 1997. This resulted in dismissal with prejudice of all claims except the Plaintiff Intervenors' claims regarding equal protection and access to the courts that had been asserted on behalf of female subclass members. This 1997 judgment contained the findings required by the PLRA, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreements.

Between 1997 and 2003 the County made efforts to reduce the inmate population but the BCDC remained overcrowded. In September 2000, the court entered an order finding the defendants had been in violation of the population cap imposed in the PLRA order for eleven of the preceding twelve months and the population at BCDC at times approached the dangerously high population that existed at the time of the 1995 injunction. The court ordered the defendants to comply with the order and consider and implement other measures to reduce the population of BCDC.

The defendants responded by constructing a new facility, the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), which was completed in the summer of 2003. By June 17, 2003, all inmates housed at BCDC had been transferred to the MDC. On July 11, 2003, the court ruled that the previous orders applied to the MDC and the court had continuing jurisdiction to enforce those orders.

On October 10, 2003, the City and County moved to vacate the PLRA order and the 1997 judgment under FRCP 60(b)(5) and (6). They also asked the court to reconsider its decision to exercise jurisdiction over the MDC, arguing that the 1996 PLRA Order and the 1997 judgment could not be applied to the MDC. In 2005, while that motion was pending, the parties entered into two settlement agreements, which the court adopted as remedial orders.

On March 31, 2009, the court issued an order in which it determined that the inmates at the renovated BCDC, which had been renamed the Regional Corrections Center (RCC), were potential class and subclass members because the County had maintained operational control over the RCC. The court gave the plaintiffs and plaintiff intervenors the option to rescind the 2005 settlement agreements, which they did the following month, April 2009.

On May 18, 2009, United States District Judge Martha Vazquez recused from the case, and on May 19, 2009, Senior United States District Judge James A. Parker was assigned to the case.

On December 7, 2011, the court appointed three experts and asked them to evaluate conditions at the MDC in the areas listed in the 2005 settlement agreements.

On February 26, 2013, after receiving reports from the three experts on conditions at the MDC, which had become dangerously overcrowded, the court ordered the City and the County to appear and show cause why the MDC should not cease ". . . Housing female residents, who have not been classified or who have different classifications, in the same Segregation housing unit." On the day of that hearing, the parties agreed to alter the conditions for female inmates at MDC. This pattern repeated with an April order to show cause and a May settlement that requiring the County to draft a plan addressing certain matters and implement the plan by certain dates.

The court referred to the two agreements above as the 2013 Stipulated Orders. On July 24, 2013, the court issued another order to show cause requiring the county to show how it had complied with the 2013 Stipulated Orders. At a hearing on August 8, 2013, it became clear that the County did not comply with the 2013 Stipulated Orders in several areas.

On May 12, 2014, the court entered an order incorporating many of the provisions of prior orders and also requiring the County to create an Emergency Population Management Plan in cooperation with the Criminal Justice Review Commission (CJRC) to ensure that the population at MDC remains at or under 1950. The order contained provisions for the court's experts to resolve disputes over implementation of the order's requirements.

On September 23, 2014, the court ordered three experts to evaluate the conditions of confinement at MDC and determined whether the County was in compliance with each specific enumerated provision from the previous orders.

At a status conference on March 10, 2015, the court asked the parties to develop a plan for disengagement of court oversight and for eventual dismissal of the lawsuit. The parties worked with Special Master Alan C. Torgerson, who before his retirement had been the Magistrate Judge on this case, to develop a settlement agreement that would finish the litigation while ensuring that positive changes in conditions at MDC would become permanent.

After months of negotiations with the Special Master, the parties submitted a settlement agreement that the court granted final approval of on June 26, 2016. As a condition to entry of the settlement agreement, the County successfully demonstrated initial compliance with numerous standards which corresponded with each of the three court-appointed expert's areas of evaluation: provision of all medial services; provision of all mental health services; and general conditions of confinement. The standards contained nearly every substantive requirement from previous court orders.

Under the settlement agreement, once the court finds the County in initial compliance with the relevant set of requirements, the County must continue to meet those requirements for a Court-imposed period of time, during which the County agreed to "self-monitor" the particular conditions at issue. During the self-monitoring period, the County was required to submit quarterly reports to the appropriate expert and counsel for plaintiffs and plaintiff intervenors. After the completion of the self-monitoring period, the experts must conduct "Check-Out Audits" and make a finding of compliance, partial compliance, or non-compliance, using the standards set out in each Check-Out Agreement. Based on the County's self-monitoring reports as well as the experts' proposed findings at the Check-Out Audits, the court would determine whether the record supports a finding of substantial compliance as to each domain. If substantial compliance was found, the extant orders governing that particular domain would be vacated and removed from the specific reporting and other requirements imposed by the Check-Out Audit Agreement.

Finally, once the County demonstrated substantial compliance with each of the eight domains, the court would enter a permanent injunction with the following provisions: 1) population of the MDC will be limited to the operational capacity of the MDC (which at the time was 1950); 2) no inmates will be triple-celled; 3) no inmates will sleep in day rooms, except for detoxification units; 4) high risk or security threat inmates or inmates requiring segregation will not be double-celled with other inmates unless determined to be compatible; 5) segregated inmates who are in protective custody or new intakes may be double celled if they have been determined to be low risk and compatible; and 6) unclassified inmates will not be housed with segregated inmates. The settlement also stated that any permanent injunction would contain the findings required by the PLRA. After entry of this permanent injunction, the court could dismiss all claims and vacate all extant orders.

On November 30, 2016, plaintiffs and plaintiffs-intervenors filed a joint motion for order to show cause and for further remedial relief: Plaintiffs sought orders requiring employees of BCDC unit for medical conditions or medical disabilities to complete a specialized competency-based training. The plaintiffs also sought to have any employees that did not demonstrate the necessary specialized skills to be transferred out of the unit.

That motion also asked the court to hold a show cause hearing regarding compliance with some of its previous orders. The court granted this, and ordered the City Defendants to appear and show cause whether were in compliance with the following:

(1) The court's 2001 Supplemental Order, which required City Defendants to "[p]rovide direction to law enforcement officials under the control of the City. . . to issue citations where appropriate and to use the 'walk through procedures,' rather than incarcerating individuals, where appropriate."

(2) Another provision of the 2001 Supplemental Order, which required City Defendants to "schedule a meeting or meetings concerning the provision of mental health services in Bernalillo County. . . to plan how to implement an effective jail diversion program for persons with psychiatric or developmental disabilities.

(3) The ADA and RA with regard to detaining and arresting individuals with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities to sweep them from the streets.

The court granted the plaintiff intervenors request to conduct limited discovery before this show cause hearing. While this discovery ensued, the parties engaged in mediation efforts with Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen.

On September 11, 2017, the court denied the motion for further remedial relief and decided not to hold the defendants in contempt. The court found that despite MDC's training deficiencies and hesitation when faced with allegations of abuse, the court believed that there was not yet sufficient evidence to hold the County in contempt. The court did state that the County would have to improve MDC's mental health services before the court would find substantial compliance as required by the settlement.

On that same day, the court granted final approval of another settlement agreement, this time between the City defendants, the plaintiff class, and the plaintiff intervenor subclass. This settlement was not directly regulation any conditions at the facilities, but instead provided for the defendants to initiate revision to their operating procedures for arrests. Specifically, the defendants agreed to issue a special order that directed police officers to issue citations wherever appropriate, and to follow operative policies holding that persons alleged to have committed non-violent misdemeanor offenses shall not be arrested when there are no circumstances necessitating an arrest.

On February 5, 2018, the court appointed Margo Frasier to replace the previous expert regarding jail operations. The court asked Ms. Frasier to evaluate whether MDC is in compliance with the standards described in the check-out audit agreement in accordance with the settlement agreement. The court instructed Ms. Frasier to: prepare her first report by August 31, 2018; prepare her second report by February 28, 2019; and then to continue preparing subsequent reports at six-month intervals.

As of April 4, 2019, the docket does not show that any additional expert reports evaluating compliance that have been filed with the court. The litigation has continued with various disputes over protective orders and the scope of various confidentiality orders. The litigation is ongoing, and the parties are presumably following the settlement agreement's procedures in an attempt to demonstrate compliance with its substantive requirements.

Michael Abrams - 10/19/2016
MJ Koo - 03/15/2017
Chris Pollack - 04/03/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Content of Injunction
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Preliminary relief granted
Reporting
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Post-PLRA Population Cap
Pre-PLRA Population Cap
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Assault/abuse by staff
Conditions of confinement
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Mail
Pepper/OC spray
Recreation / Exercise
Sanitation / living conditions
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Medical/Mental Health
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Medical care, general
Mental health care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Defendant(s) Bernalillo County Detention Center
Plaintiff Description Inmates with mental or developmental disabilities at the Bernalillo County Detention Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico
Indexed Lawyer Organizations NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Filing Year 1995
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
95-24 (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/05/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint Class Action [ECF# 1]
JC-NM-0002-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/10/1995
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 106] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/23/1995
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Agreement [ECF# 115]
JC-NM-0002-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/07/1995
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (79 F.3d 1014)
JC-NM-0002-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/02/1996
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion and Order (29 F.Supp.2d 1267) (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/29/1996
Source: Google Scholar
Order Regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act [ECF# 255] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/05/1996
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [re. settlement of plaintiff-intervenors] [ECF# 256] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/05/1996
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Certifying a Class [ECF# 257] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/05/1996
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (100 F.3d 863)
JC-NM-0002-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/15/1996
Source: Google Scholar
Order Approving Compromise & Settlement Agreement & Final Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF# 288] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/07/1997
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0014.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 08/22/2000
Source: District Court
Supplemental Order to Enforce Previously Ordered Population Limits at the BCDC Main Facility [ECF# 319] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/27/2001
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Agreement
JC-NM-0002-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2002
Memorandum Opinion and Order (272 F.Supp.2d 1250) (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/11/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 459] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/23/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Defendants [ECF# 480]
JC-NM-0002-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/28/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff Intervenors and Defendants [ECF# 481]
JC-NM-0002-0031.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/28/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff Intervenors and Defendants [ECF# 514]
JC-NM-0002-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/30/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Defendants [ECF# 515]
JC-NM-0002-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/30/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 699] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/31/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 718] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/15/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
USCA Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 828-1] (630 F.3d 1288)
JC-NM-0002-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/12/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order Overruling Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order [ECF# 1009] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/25/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Resolving Two Motions and Order to Show Cause [ECF# 1147] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/12/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Order Resolving Two Motions and Order to Show Cause [Motions: Plaintiffs & Plaintiff-Intervenors' Joint Motion for a TRO and for Injunctive Relief [Doc. 1133] and (2) County Defendant's Motion to Terminate under the PLRA] [ECF# 1161] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/19/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [by District Judge] [ECF# 1167] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/23/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Instructing Court-Appointed Mental Health Expert Jeffrey Metzner, M.D. to Evaluate Mental Health Services at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center [ECF# 1169] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/23/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Order [by District Judge James A. Parker] [ECF# 1187] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/30/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion [for Order to Show Cause and for Further Remedial Relief] [ECF# 1191]
JC-NM-0002-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/17/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Response [in opposition re 1191 motion] [ECF# 1195]
JC-NM-0002-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/31/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply [to Response to Motion re 1191 Motion] [ECF# 1203]
JC-NM-0002-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/28/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Order and Opinion [ECF# 1207] (2015 WL 13667177) (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0022.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/13/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Requiring Notice to Class and Subclass Members, and Settlement Fairness Hearing [ECF# 1213] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Agreement [ECF# 1213]
JC-NM-0002-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Approval of Settlement Agreement [ECF# 1225] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/27/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Interveners' Joint Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Further Remedial Relief [ECF# 1247]
JC-NM-0002-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/30/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan [ECF# 1252]
JC-NM-0002-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/16/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Agreement and Order [ECF# 1320] (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0040.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/11/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 1321] (2017 WL 4041588) (D.N.M.)
JC-NM-0002-0041.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/11/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Gorsuch, Neil M. (Tenth Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0006
Kelly, Paul Joseph Jr. (Tenth Circuit) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0008
Molzen, Karen Ballard (D.N.M.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Parker, James Aubrey (D.N.M.) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0007 | JC-NM-0002-0013 | JC-NM-0002-0020 | JC-NM-0002-0021 | JC-NM-0002-0022 | JC-NM-0002-0023 | JC-NM-0002-0034 | JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-0037 | JC-NM-0002-0040 | JC-NM-0002-0041 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Seymour, Stephanie Kulp (Tenth Circuit) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0011
Torgerson, Alan C. (D.N.M.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0034 | JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Vázquez, Martha Alicia (D.N.M.) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0002 | JC-NM-0002-0003 | JC-NM-0002-0004 | JC-NM-0002-0005 | JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0010 | JC-NM-0002-0012 | JC-NM-0002-0014 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-0024 | JC-NM-0002-0025 | JC-NM-0002-0026 | JC-NM-0002-0028 | JC-NM-0002-0030 | JC-NM-0002-0031 | JC-NM-0002-0032 | JC-NM-0002-0033
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ayala, Anthony J. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0008 | JC-NM-0002-0011 | JC-NM-0002-0027 | JC-NM-0002-0029 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Bach, George (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Baker, Mark T. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0038 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Coberly, Todd A (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Cubra, Peter (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0002 | JC-NM-0002-0008 | JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0010 | JC-NM-0002-0011 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-0016 | JC-NM-0002-0018 | JC-NM-0002-0024 | JC-NM-0002-0025 | JC-NM-0002-0026 | JC-NM-0002-0030 | JC-NM-0002-0031 | JC-NM-0002-0032 | JC-NM-0002-0034 | JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-0038 | JC-NM-0002-0039 | JC-NM-0002-0040 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Davis, Philip B. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Dickson, Claire (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0002 | JC-NM-0002-0026 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Donatelli, Mark H. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-0038 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Duncan, Theresa M (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Han, Mary Y.C. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-0025 | JC-NM-0002-0030 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Ives, Zach A (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0034 | JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-0038 | JC-NM-0002-0039 | JC-NM-0002-0040 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Kennedy, Joseph P. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Kennedy, Shannon L. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Khalsa, Kirtan K (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Koenigsberg, Nancy (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0011 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Lowry, Marc M (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0004 | JC-NM-0002-0012 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Meilleur, David (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Pori, Brian A. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0002 | JC-NM-0002-0004 | JC-NM-0002-0010 | JC-NM-0002-0012 | JC-NM-0002-0026 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Schatz-Vance, Lisa Y (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Schmidt-Nowara, Mary (Molly) E (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Schoenburg, Peter (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0002 | JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0010 | JC-NM-0002-0026 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Simmons, Nancy (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0016 | JC-NM-0002-0018 | JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-0038 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Simpson, Elizabeth E. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0002 | JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0011 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-0026 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Smith, Alexandra Freedman (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Sylvest, Flynn Evelyn (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Vallejos, Andrew (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0026 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Vanzi, Linda M (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Waterfall, Kelly K (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0016 | JC-NM-0002-0018 | JC-NM-0002-0038 | JC-NM-0002-0039 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Winterbottom, Richard A. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Autio, Randy (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036
Baker, Jeffrey L. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0002 | JC-NM-0002-0004 | JC-NM-0002-0008 | JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-0010 | JC-NM-0002-0011 | JC-NM-0002-0012 | JC-NM-0002-0015 | JC-NM-0002-0025 | JC-NM-0002-0029 | JC-NM-0002-0030 | JC-NM-0002-0031 | JC-NM-0002-0032 | JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-9000
DuBois, John E. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Hernandez, Jessica M. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0040
Levy, Kathryn (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Macke, Daniel J (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-9000
Moulton, Debra J (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0017 | JC-NM-0002-0039 | JC-NM-0002-0040 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Rael, Marcus J Jr. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Ritchie, Carol Jean (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0009 | JC-NM-0002-9000
Robles, Luis E. (New Mexico) show/hide docs
JC-NM-0002-0034 | JC-NM-0002-0035 | JC-NM-0002-0036 | JC-NM-0002-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -