Marquez v. Baker-Chavez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANTOINETTE MARQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:24-cv-00423-KG-JMR
AMBER BAKER-CHAVEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This case arises from events occurring in conjunction with child custody proceedings in
state court. See Fifth Amended Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 110,
filed January 31, 2025 (“Fifth Amended Complaint”).1 Pro se Plaintiff asserted claims against
several state officials including judges, judicial employees and case workers, the Children, Youth
and Families Department (“CYFD”) and the State of New Mexico (collectively “the State
Defendants”) and against Albuquerque Public Schools (“APS”) and several private individuals and
entities. See Fifth Amended Complaint at 1 (naming 25 Defendants).
Plaintiff asserted four claims against APS pursuant to federal law:
Count 1 – Deprivation of Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
Count 2 – RICO;
Count 3 – RICO conspiracy;
Count 8 - 42 U.S.C. § 1986, Action for neglect to prevent;
and four claims pursuant to state law:
1 The docket incorrectly refers to the Fifth Amended Complaint as the Sixth Amended Complaint.
Case 1:24-cv-00423-KG-JMR Document 190 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Count 4 – Civil Conspiracy;
Count 5 – Abuse of Process;
Count 6 – Fraud; and
Count 7 – Theft or Alteration of Records Process, False Bail. See Fifth Amended
Complaint at 35-45.
The Court granted APS’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint in part as
follows. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against APS in Counts One, Two and Three with
prejudice. See Order Granting in part Albuquerque Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss at 12,
Doc. 174, filed September 23, 2025 (“Order”). The Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff’s claims
against APS in Counts Four through Eight. The Court noted that “[a]lthough not obvious, the Fifth
Amended Complaint, liberally construed, asserts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986, Action for
neglect to prevent” and ordered APS and Plaintiff to file supplementary briefs addressing whether
the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Order at 7-8, 12.
APS filed a supplemental brief arguing that the Fifth Amended Complaint failed to state a
claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986 because: (i) “there must be a conspiracy claim plead under
Section 1985 to bring a valid claim under Section 1986;” and (ii) Plaintiff failed to state a claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. APS’ Supplemental Briefing to Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Fifth Amended Complaint at 1-2, Doc. 178, filed October 7, 2025 (“Supplemental Brief”).
Plaintiff filed a supplemental response to APS’s Supplemental Brief. Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Albuquerque Public Schools’ (APS) Supplemental Briefing Doc. [178], Doc. 186, filed
October 21, 2025 (“Reply”). Plaintiff argues that the “Court’s decision to permit APS a
supplemental pleading [regarding Count 8] after dismissal [of Counts 1-3] is procedurally
defective and arbitrary.” Reply at 1. The Court previously addressed this argument finding that it
Case 1:24-cv-00423-KG-JMR Document 190 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
is within the Court’s inherent power to allow supplemental briefing. See Doc. 189, filed
January 14, 2026. Plaintiff also contends that the Court’s imposition of filing restrictions deprives
Plaintiff of her First Amendment right to petition the government for redress and her due process
right to a fair adjudication.” Reply at 2. Plaintiff has not, however, explained how the filing
restrictions deny Plaintiff due process with respect to APS’ Motion to Dismiss and supplemental
brief. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the Court is considering, Plaintiff’s response to APS’
Supplemental Brief. See Order at 8, 12. Plaintiff also states: (i) she “invoked Whistleblower
protections and the Violence Against Women Act;” (ii) the Court has ignored the admissions of
APS and other Parties; and (iii) Defendants Matthew Torres, Teresa Hanlon, and Family Law Firm
LLC submitted contradictory and materially false pleadings. Reply at 5-7. Plaintiff has not shown
how those issues are relevant to the Court’s determination of whether the Fifth Amended
Complaint states a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Count 8 - 42 U.S.C. § 1986, Action for neglect to prevent.
42 U.S.C. § 1986:
provides a cause of action against “[e]very person who, having knowledge that any
of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 ... are about to
be committed, and having power to prevent or aid ... neglects or refuses to do so.”
Hence, there can be no valid claim under § 1986 of neglect to prevent a known
conspiracy, in the absence of a conspiracy under § 1985. Santistevan and Herrera
failed to establish a viable § 1985(1) cause of action. Thus, the district court
properly dismissed their § 1986 claim. . .
Santistevan v. Loveridge, 732 F.2d 116, 118 (10th Cir. 1984). The “Counts” Plaintiff asserts in her
Fifth Amended Complaint do not include a claim for Conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
See Fifth Amended Complaint at 42 (asserting “Count Four Civil Conspiracy”). Plaintiff does,
however, reference 42 U.S.C. § 1985 in the “Jurisdiction” section of the Fifth Amended
Complaint. See Fifth Amended Complaint at 4.
Case 1:24-cv-00423-KG-JMR Document 190 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
The relevant portion of § 1985(2) provides a right of action “if two or more persons
conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any
manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to
any citizen the equal protection of the laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). Section 1985(3),
clause 1, provides a right of action “[i]f two or more persons in any State or
Territory conspire ... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any
person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
Among other elements, both causes of action require a showing of “some racial, or
perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the
conspirators' action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29
L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); see also Murray v. City of Sapulpa, 45 F.3d 1417, 1423 (10th
Cir.1995); Smith v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 536 F.2d 1320, 1323 (10th Cir.1976).
The focus of the racial animus inquiry is the government actor's “intent, motive, or
purpose.” Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 647
(10th Cir.1988). To avoid summary judgment, Plaintiffs must point to “specific,
nonconclusory evidence” that the Defendants' actions were “improperly
motivated.” Id. at 650.
Jones v. Norton, 809 F.3d 564, 578 (10th Cir. 2015).
Plaintiff contends that “each required element of a § 1986 claim has been met and
supported by evidence already of record” and that APS committed a Section 1985 violation by
“join[ing] with other defendants in a Joinder Motion Doc. [94] to dismiss th[is] action.” Reply at
2-3(citing documents filed in this case). Plaintiff has not shown that the Fifth Amended Complaint
states a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because: (i) she does not identify allegations in the
Fifth Amended Complaint showing some racial or otherwise class-based discriminatory animus
behind Defendants’ actions; and (ii) she has not alleged non-conclusory facts establishing a
conspiracy. Because Plaintiff failed to establish a viable Section 1985 claim, the Court dismisses
Plaintiff’s Section 1986 claim against APS for failure to state a claim. See Santistevan v.
Loveridge, 732 F.2d 116, 118 (10th Cir. 1984) (“there can be no valid claim under § 1986 of neglect
to prevent a known conspiracy, in the absence of a conspiracy under § 1985”).
The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims against APS, declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses Plaintiff’s state-
Case 1:24-cv-00423-KG-JMR Document 190 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
law claims against APS without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden
& Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2020) (“The Supreme Court has encouraged the
practice of dismissing state claims or remanding them to state court when the federal claims to
which they are supplemental have dropped out before trial”).
IT IS ORDERED that APS’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint,
Doc. 114, filed February 13, 2025, is GRANTED in part as follows: (i) Plaintiff’s claims against
APS in Count Eight pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986 are DISMISSED with prejudice; (ii) Plaintiff’s
state-law claims against APS in Counts 4-8 are DISMISSED without prejudice.2
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity,
please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF
(Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this
document. Electronically filed documents can be
found on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
2 The Court previously granted APS’s Motion to Dismiss in part dismissing with prejudice
Plaintiff’s federal law claims against APS in Counts 1-3. See Order at 12, Doc. 174, filed
September 23, 2025.
Case 1:24-cv-00423-KG-JMR Document 190 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 5