Gardner v. New Mexico Board of Dental Health et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM GARDNER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-00421-SMD-SCY
NEW MEXICO BOARD OF DENTAL HEALTH as a public body
Individually in their Government official-capacities
JENNIFER THOMPSON,
MELISSA BARBARA,
PAULA JENKINS,
VALOREE ALTHOFF,
MAYA MASCARENAZ,
JEFFERY WEATON,
HOLLY BEAUMONT,
KEVIN MCMAHON,
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE as a public body,
DANIEL RUBIN in his official capacity,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW REPLY
This case arises from proceedings before the New Mexico Board of Dental Health
(“Board”) regarding Plaintiff’s application to have his dental license reinstated. 	See Verified
Complaint for Violations of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, Prima Facie Tortious Claim of Civil
Aiding, Abetting, Civil Conspiracy, a 1983 Claim for Damages and Injunctive Relief, Doc. 1-1,
filed May 2, 2025 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff seeks, among other things, “immediate reinstatement”
of his dental license. Complaint at 13.
Plaintiff filed an Emergency Petition, now before the Court, seeking a writ of mandamus,
a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to compel Defendants to immediately
process Plaintiff’s application for reinstatement of his dental license. See Emergency Petition for
Writ of Mandamus and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at 17, Doc. 66, filed February 6, 2026 (“Motion Seeking Injunctive
Case 1:25-cv-00421-SMD-SCY Document 82 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Relief”). After he filed his Reply to the New Mexico Department of Justice’s Response, Plaintiff
filed a Notice withdrawing his Reply stating he seeks only to correct or replace four citations and
does not seek to make any other alterations. 	See Notice of Withdrawal of Reply in Support of
Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Doc. 70, filed February 27, 2026 (“Motion to
Withdraw Reply”); D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.7 (“A party may withdraw a document from consideration
by the Court by filing and serving a notice of withdrawal which specifically identifies the
document being withdrawn. Withdrawal requires consent of all other parties or approval of the
Court”).
Plaintiff subsequently appealed several of the Court’s Orders. 	See Notice of Appeal,
Doc. 77, filed March 29, 2026 (appealing: (i) Doc. 72, denying Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate
this case with another case involving the same questions of law and facts; (ii) Doc. 73, denying
Plaintiff’s three motions for default judgment; (iii) Doc. 74, denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s
motion to file an amended complaint and striking Plaintiff’s improperly filed amended complaint;
(iv) Doc. 75, denying Plaintiff’s motions to certain Defendants’ motion to dismiss for insufficient
service; and (v) Doc. 76, granting Defendant New Mexico Department of Justice’s motion to
dismiss).
“[T]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it
confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its
control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” United States v.
Madrid, 633 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
But “an effective notice of appeal does not prohibit all later action in the case by
the district court.” Id. As noted, the district court loses jurisdiction only “over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal,” and so it “may address matters that are
not comprehended within the appeal.” Id. at 1226-27 (brackets and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Garcia v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713,
721 (10th Cir. 1987) (“In collateral matters not involved in the appeal ... the district
court retains jurisdiction.”).
CGC Holding Co., LLC, v. Hutchens, 780 Fed.Appx. 604, 606 (10th Cir. 2019).
Case 1:25-cv-00421-SMD-SCY Document 82 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Reply
which seeks only to correct or replace four citations and thus is a collateral matter not involved in
Plaintiff’s appeal. The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Reply.
The Court concludes it does not have jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Injunctive Relief because it addresses aspects of this case involved in Plaintiff’s appeal. The Court
defers ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit addresses Plaintiff’s appeal and transfers jurisdiction to this Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal of Reply in Support of Verified
Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Doc. 70, filed February 27, 2026, is GRANTED.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00421-SMD-SCY Document 82 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3