Hatten-Gonzales et al. v. Scrase

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ABIGALE KNOWLTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 1:88-cv-00385-KG-JHR
KARI ARMIJO, Secretary of the
New Mexico Health Care Authority,
Defendant.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objections to the Special Master’s case
review report. Doc. 1200. Defendant did not object to the Special Master’s report or respond to
Plaintiffs’ objections; any objections not raised are waived. Doc. 762 at 3 (“Failure to timely
object to the Special Master’s findings will constitute a waiver of those objections.”). After
reviewing the Special Master’s report de novo, the Court overrules in part and sustains in part
Plaintiffs’ objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f).
I. Background
This is a “long-running class action lawsuit” filed in 1988 with a “complex procedural
history” challenging New Mexico’s “administration of federal social benefits programs.”
Knowlton v. Armijo, 2024 WL 4615849, at *1 (10th Cir.). The class includes “[a]ll present and
future applicants” to the federal SNAP or Medicaid program “who have not or will not receive
an eligibility determination or benefits under these programs from [the New Mexico Human
Services Department] within the time limits imposed by law.” Id. “The parties entered and [this
Court] approved the operative consent decree—the Second Revised Modified Settlement
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-JHR Document 1203 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Agreement and Order—in 2018.” Id. (footnote omitted). The Special Master was “appointed to
administer the [consent] decree” and “recommend[] case file review procedures,” such as the
case review at issue here. Id. at *2.
II. Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f), the Court “reviews de novo all objections to
findings of fact made or recommended by a master.” Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice & Proc.
§ 2612 (2025) (“Wright & Miller”). “[A]s to the master’s rulings on procedural matters, Rule
53(f)(5) provides that unless the appointing order establishes a different standard, the court is to
review them for abuse of discretion.” Id. “[F]or a court to sustain a party’s objection to the
master’s report, the objection must be specific and clearly identify a factual or legal error in the
report and recommendation”—“general objections” do not “satisfy this requirement.” Id.
III. Analysis
First Objection. Plaintiffs first “object to the Special Master’s reversal of” unspecified
“error findings” in Plaintiffs’ case review that “Defendant had systematically failed to create and
retain receipts for documents submitted by class members,” findings to which Defendants
allegedly “agreed.” Doc. 1200 at 3. The Court overrules this objection. Plaintiffs do not
identify, with record citations or any other indicators, the specific “error findings” to which they
refer; nor they do cite evidence of Defendant’s agreement with their error findings. The Court is
“not obligated,” and declines in this case, “to comb the record in order to make [Plaintiffs]
arguments for [them].” Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1199 (10th Cir. 2000). Again,
“general objections” do not satisfy Rule 53(f)’s requirements. Wright & Miller § 2612.
Second Objection. Plaintiffs next contend that the Special Master “did not fully address
the largest sources of notice errors” for Question 15. Doc. 1200 at 3–4. They “request that a
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-JHR Document 1203 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
corrective action plan address the most common errors found in Notices and specifically address
the lack of calculation tables” found in 10 of 64 cases. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs also ask that
“Recommendation 2” in the Special Master’s report “be applied to require review and correction
of both the [“Help Us Make a Decision” request (‘HUMAD’)] and the ISD 201 for elderly and
disabled New Mexicans receiving nursing home level of care.” Id. at 4. The Court rejects these
conclusory requests as well and overrules Plaintiffs’ second objection, as “Plaintiffs came forth
with no explanation or argument, that is, no specific objection, as to why the Special Master’s
[findings are] insufficient to address the problem[s]” at hand. Hatten-Gonzales v. Scrase, 2022
WL 655910, at *1 (D.N.M.). Plaintiffs, for example, assert that the HUMAD is “unintelligible”
and “flawed” because it is “not programed to seek the types of documents that the agency needs
for this group of class members,” but Plaintiffs offer no further explanation or evidence from the
record to substantiate these assertions. Doc. 1200 at 4. The Court will not overturn the Special
Master’s findings based on these generalized objections; nor will the Court make Plaintiffs’
arguments for them. See Wright & Miller § 2612. The parties are ordered to meet and confer
about these issues and present their positions to the Special Master within 30 days of this order;
the Special Master shall then rule on these issues promptly.
Third Objection. Plaintiffs also contend that the Special Master’s recommendations “did
not include systemic remedies to permanently address the continued high rate of eligibility and
notice errors.” Doc. 1200 at 4–7. They ask that a corrective action plan “implement an internal
compliance system” for Defendant and that the Court “order Defendant to implement a worker
manual that will be a comprehensive source of application and renewal processing guidance for
workers.” Id. The Court, likewise, overrules these objections. Again, Plaintiffs cite no record
evidence to support their argument that the alleged lack of an internal compliance system or
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-JHR Document 1203 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
worker manual contributed to the “high level of eligibility errors this year” or that the specific
system and manual that they propose will reduce such errors going forward. The Court declines
to overturn the Special Master’s findings and impose generalized, broadly worded directives
based solely on Plaintiffs’ conjecture. “Plaintiffs believe the Special Master strongly endorses”
their request that the Court “order Defendant to create…an enduring internal review system,” but
the Court does not find any evidence of this endorsement in the Special Master’s report or the
record. Doc. 1200 at 6. Nor do Plaintiffs cite any such evidence. The Court directs the parties
to work together with the Special Master on these issues to create a more detailed
recommendation to present to the Court that relies on data and record evidence—not speculation.
Specifically, the parties are ordered to meet and confer about these issues and present their
positions to the Special Master within 30 days of this order; the Special Master shall then rule on
these issues promptly.
Fourth Objection. Next, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reject the Special
Master’s fifth recommendation that the parties “[c]omplete an evaluation of the Consent Decree
to give recognition to the requirements that have been satisfied and give consideration to the
compliance measure for Section III of the Consent Decree and make recommendations to the
Special Master and the Court.” Doc. 1198 at 19. Plaintiffs argue that this recommendation is
“premature” because Defendant “has not satisfied the Decree’s current requirements,” the
“Decree does not provide alternative compliance measures,” and “Plaintiffs do not think a
modification of the Decree is at all justified at this time.” Doc. 1200 at 7. The Court overrules
these objections as well. Recommendation five does not ask Plaintiffs to excuse noncompliance
with the current consent decree; it asks the parties to come together to analyze the consent decree
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-JHR Document 1203 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
going forward for efficiencies and potential ways to streamline this nearly 40-year-old lawsuit.
The Court agrees with this recommendation.
Fifth Objection. Last, Plaintiffs argue that, while the Special Master “require[d]
Defendant to act or confer with Plaintiffs’ Counsel on a remedy,” the Special Master’s
recommendations “do not require any deadlines for doing so.” Doc. 1200 at 7. Plaintiffs
therefore propose that “all negotiated remedial actions be satisfactorily concluded by January 1,
2027, with shorter time frames for the items that have the most impact on participants.” Id. The
Court overrules in part and sustains in part this objection. While January 1, 2027, may or may
not be a reasonable deadline for certain remedial actions, the Court declines to fashion, on its
own without input from the parties or Special Master, “shorter time frames for the [unspecified]
items” that Plaintiffs contend allegedly “have the most impact on participants.” Id. Plaintiffs’
suggestions are, again, too vague to adopt, and they violate Rule 53(f)’s requirement that
objections “must be specific and clearly identify a factual or legal error” in the Special Master’s
report. Id. That said, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that, as a general matter, clear and
achievable deadlines should be imposed in these proceedings.
The Court takes this opportunity to express a level of disappointment that the parties have
not made more significant progress toward closing this lawsuit. “[F]ederal consent decrees are”
designed to be “temporary solutions that may be kept in place only as long as necessary to cure
an unlawful condition”; they do not justify never-ending litigation and federal oversight of state
agencies. Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program, 880 F.3d 1176, 1192 (10th Cir. 2018)
(emphasis added). Indeed, endless consent decrees “raise[] serious federalism concerns,” as they
“necessarily interject[] a federal court into local affairs,” “bind[] local governmental officials
who were not parties to the consent decree,” and “effectively limit[] the democratic process.” Id.
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-JHR Document 1203 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
at 1196, 1199. The Court therefore admonishes the parties to work together with the Special
Master to streamline this case and find creative and effective ways to ensure both that the State
accurately administers the SNAP and Medicaid programs in New Mexico and that the end is in
sight for this nearly 40-year-old lawsuit. Indeed, the Court orders that this case be concluded no
later than December 31, 2026.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ objections to the Special Master’s report (Doc. 1200) are overruled in part and
sustained in part. The objections are sustained in part in that the Court imposes the deadline for
closing this case described above. The objections are overruled, and the Special Master’s report
is adopted, in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/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.
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-JHR Document 1203 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 6