Gardner v. State of New Mexico et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM GARDNER,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
NEW MEXICO BOARD OF DENTAL HEALTH,
CHARLES SCHUMACHER, in his official capacity,
JENNIFER THOMPSON, in her official capacity,
LAUREN CUNNINGHAM, in her official capacity,
JEFFREY WEATON, in his official capacity,
MELISSA BARBARA, in her official capacity,
DAVID WARREN, in his official capacity,
BURRELL TUCKER, in his official capacity,
JOLYNN GALVIN, in her official capacity,
DENISE MYRICK, in her official capacity,
HOLLY BEAUMONT, in her official capacity,
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
DELILIA TENORIO, in her official capacity,
NEW MEXICO REGULATION AND LICENSING DEPARTMENT, and
ROBERTA PEREA, in her official capacity,
Defendants.
SECOND1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Defendant New Mexico Board of Dental Health revoked pro se Plaintiff’s dental license
effective January 1, 2020. See Verified Complaint for Violations of the New Mexico Civil Rights
Act, Section 1983 Claims, Prima Facie Claim of Civil Aiding, Abetting, Civil Conspiracy,
FOIA/IPRA Violations for Damages and Injunctive Relief at 5, Doc. 1, filed August 1, 2025
(“Complaint”). In 2023 and 2024, Plaintiff applied for reinstatement of his license through
Defendant New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department. See Complaint at 6. Plaintiff
1 The Court dismissed this case after Plaintiff failed to respond to an Order to Show Cause. See
Order of Dismissal, Doc. 6, filed September 26, 2025. The Court reopened this case after Plaintiff
claimed he never received the Order to Show Cause via the United States Postal Service. See
Order Reopening Case, Doc. 10, filed October 20, 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 8

2
alleged that Defendant Board denied his application for reinstatement and now asserts due process
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims pursuant to state law. See Complaint at 11-12, 22.
Plaintiff asserts those claims against the State of New Mexico, the New Mexico Board of Dental
Health (“Board”), the New Mexico Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the New Mexico Regulation
and Licensing Department (“RLD”), and some employees of those state agencies. See Complaint
at 1, at 12, ¶ 38. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement of his dental
license, an order enjoining Defendants “from undertaking any unlawful actions against” Plaintiff,
and a stay of “all unconstitutional orders by the Defendants.” Complaint at 23.
United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiff that Plaintiff bears
the burden of alleging facts that support jurisdiction and identified the following jurisdictional
deficiencies in the Complaint:
(i) It appears that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for
monetary damages against the State of New Mexico, the Board, the DOJ, the RLD,
and the individual Defendants in their official capacities due to Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity.
(ii) It appears that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for
injunctive relief against the State of New Mexico, the Board, the DOJ, the RLD,
and the individual Defendants in their official capacities because Plaintiff has not
shown that the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies
to any of the Defendants.
(iii) It appears the Court may lack jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Younger
abstention doctrine due to Plaintiff’s ongoing appeal in state court of the denial of
reinstatement of his license.
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 8

3
See Order to Show Cause at 3-6, Doc. 4, filed August 12, 2025. Judge Yarbrough ordered Plaintiff
to either show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant
to Eleventh Amendment immunity and Younger or file an amended complaint that remedies the
deficiencies. See Order to Show Cause at 6-7.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint seeking monetary damages, “reinstatement of the
Plaintiff’s professional dental license” and an order “prohibiting Defendants from undertaking any
unlawful actions against [Plaintiff] to the detriment of his Constitutional right to procedural and
substantive due process and immediate [s]tay of all unconstitutional orders by the Defendants.”
Amended Verified Complaint for Violations of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, Section 1983 &
1985 Claims, Prima Facie Claim of Civil Aiding, Abetting, Civil Conspiracy, FOIA/IPRA
Violations for Damages and Injunctive Relief at 26-27, Doc. 11, filed November 5, 2025
(“Amended Complaint”).
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
“Generally, states and their agencies are protected from suit by sovereign immunity, as
guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment.” Levy v. Kansas Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation
Services, 789 F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir. 2015). “However, there are three exceptions to the
Eleventh Amendment’s guarantee of sovereign immunity to states”:
First, a state may consent to suit in federal court. Second, Congress may abrogate a
state’s sovereign immunity by appropriate legislation when it acts under Section 5
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28
S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), a plaintiff may bring suit against individual state
officers acting in their official capacities if the complaint alleges an ongoing
violation of federal law and the plaintiff seeks prospective relief.
Id. (citing Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal
citations omitted and altered)); see also Turner v. National Council of State Boards of Nursing,
Inc., 561 F. App’x 661, 665 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[Eleventh Amendment] immunity extends to arms
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 8

4
of the state and state officials who are sued for damages in their official capacity”) (citing Peterson
v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 2013)).
“[F]or the Ex parte Young exception to apply, plaintiffs must show that they are: (1) suing
state officials rather than the state itself, (2) alleging an ongoing violation of federal law, and (3)
seeking prospective relief.” Clark v. Haaland, 2024 WL 4763759 *4 (10th Cir.) (citing Muscogee
(Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1167 (10th Cir. 2012)).
To determine whether “Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit,
a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint
alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized
as prospective.” Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645,
122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002) (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he
exception is narrow: It applies only to prospective relief, [and it] does not permit
judgments against state officers declaring that they violated federal law in the
past....” Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S.
139, 146, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993).
Catanach sought relief from past harms, i.e., relief from [state-court judge]
Thomson's past rulings on his motions for recusal and for summary judgment and
his failure to grant an expedited hearing or to require the City to issue a surety bond
with its application for an injunction. The district judge was correct—these claims
do not allege an ongoing violation of federal law and the Ex parte Young exception
to Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply.
Catanach v. Thomson, 718 Fed.Appx. 595, 598-99 (10th Cir. 2017).
Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and states Section 1983
“eliminated the defense of sovereign immunity” but has not shown that the United States Congress
abrogated the State’s sovereign immunity by enacting those statutes. Amended Complaint at 23,
¶ 96. “[S]tates may not be sued in federal court . . . unless Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise
of power, unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate [Eleventh Amendment] immunity.”
Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added). Sections 1983 and
1985 do not unequivocally express Congress’ intent to abrogate States’ Eleventh Amendment
sovereign immunity. “[T]he United States Supreme Court has previously held that Congress did
not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Ruiz v.
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 8

5
McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1181 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345
(1979)).
Plaintiff has not shown that the State of New Mexico has consented to suit in this Court.
Plaintiff alleges that the New Mexico Civil Rights Act “eliminated the defense of sovereign
immunity.” Amended Complaint at 23, ¶ 96. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act waives sovereign
immunity for claims for deprivations of rights pursuant to the New Mexico Constitution brought
in state court; it does not waive sovereign immunity for claims for deprivations of rights brought
in this United States Court. See N.M.S.A. §§ 41-4A-3(B)2 and 41-4A-9.3
Plaintiff has not shown that the Ex parte Young exception applies. Plaintiff asserts the
Ex parte Young exception applies because “Plaintiff is suing the Defendants who are NM state
officers acting in their official capacities and as individuals as the complaint alleges an ongoing
violation of federal law.” Amended Complaint at 12. Amended Complaint at 26-27. There are no
factual allegations describing any ongoing administrative proceedings in which Defendants are
depriving Plaintiff of his due process rights. Plaintiff’s request for reinstatement of his dental
license is not a request for prospective relief; it is a request for relief from past alleged harms.
Younger Abstention
2“A person who claims to have suffered a deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities
pursuant to the bill of rights of the constitution of New Mexico due to acts or omissions of a public
body or person acting on behalf of, under color of or within the course and scope of the authority
of a public body may maintain an action to establish liability and recover actual damages and
equitable or injunctive relief in any New Mexico district court.” N.M.S.A. § 41-4A-3(B) (emphasis
added).
3“The state shall not have sovereign immunity for itself or any public body within the state for
claims brought pursuant to the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, and the public body or person acting
on behalf of, under color of or within the course and scope of the authority of the public body
provided pursuant to the New Mexico Civil Rights Act shall not assert sovereign immunity as a
defense or bar to an action.” N.M.S.A. § 41-4A-9 (emphasis added).
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 8

6
Plaintiff states he appealed the denial of reinstatement of his license to the state district
court. See Amended Complaint at 7-8, ¶ 11 (referencing Gardner v. New Mexico Board of Dental
Healthcare, No. D-101-CV-202301228). Plaintiff also indicates his appeal in state court is
ongoing. See Amended Complaint at 25, ¶ 107.
The Younger abstention doctrine "dictates that federal courts not interfere with state court
proceedings ... when such relief could adequately be sought before the state court." Rienhardt v.
Kelly, 164 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1999); D.L. v. Unified School Dist. No. 497, 392 F.3d 1223,
1228 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Younger abstention is jurisdictional”) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
Better Env., 523 U.S. 83, 100 n.3 (1998)). In determining whether Younger abstention is
appropriate, the Court considers whether:
(1) there is an ongoing state ... civil ... proceeding, (2) the state court provides an
adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint, and (3) the state
proceedings involve important state interests, matters which traditionally look to
state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies.
Younger abstention is non-discretionary; it must be invoked once the three
conditions are met, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999) (citations
omitted).
In addition to the foregoing elements, the Supreme Court has further limited
Younger to three categories. In New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the
City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989), the Court, drawing from its previous
Younger decisions, said the doctrine applies when the state proceedings are (1)
“criminal prosecutions,” id. at 368; (2) certain “civil enforcement proceedings,” id.
(citing Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604 (1975); Trainor v. Hernandez,
431 U.S. 434, 444 (1977); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979)); or (3) “civil
proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state
courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions,” id. (citing Juidice v. Vail, 430
U.S. 327, 336 n.12 (1977); Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13 (1987)).
Covington v. Humphries, No. 24-1158, 2025 WL 1448661 *3 (10th Cir. May 19, 2025); Travelers
Cas. Ins. Co. of America v. A-Quality Auto Sales, Inc., 98 F.4th 1307, 1317 (10th Cir. 2024) (stating
“[p]ossibility of Younger abstention is triggered only when state proceeding falls into one of the
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 8

7
following categories: . . . (2) civil enforcement proceedings [that take on quasi-criminal shape]
. . .”) (brackets in original). It appears that Younger applies because the State’s proceeding
resulting in revocation of Plaintiff’s license and denial of his application for reinstatement is quasi-
criminal in nature. See Roshan v. McCauley, 130 F.4th 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2025) (Younger
abstention applies to disciplinary proceeding regarding real estate license “[b]cause a license [is]
at issue and could be suspended or revoked, the state proceedings ...[a]re ‘quasi-criminal’”)
(quoting Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 2003)); Wassef v. Tibben,
68 F.4th1083, 1088 (8th Cir. 2023) (concluding “the Board's ongoing physician disciplinary
proceeding against Wassef is quasi-criminal in nature and thus qualifies for Younger abstention as
a matter of law”).
Plaintiff’s only argument against the application of Younger states “the Younger abstention
doctrine has been trumped by stare[] d[eci]sis via Patsy v. Board of Regents and the detail[ed]
explanation supra.” Amended Complaint at 25, ¶ 104. Plaintiff states that “Patsy v. Board of
Regents established that exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite for a Section 1983
claim.” Amended Complaint at 24, ¶ 101 (emphasis added). In Patsy, the United States Supreme
Court held that “exhaustion of state administrative remedies should not be required as a
prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983.” Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496,
516 (1982) (emphasis added). Patsy did not address the applicability of Younger for ongoing civil
enforcement proceedings appealed to state district court.
Plaintiff has not shown that Younger does not apply to this case. This case arises from
alleged due process violations during administrative proceedings related to the revocation of
Plaintiff’s license and denial of Plaintiff’s request to have the license reinstated. The ongoing
proceeding against Plaintiff regarding his license is quasi-criminal in nature and therefore qualifies
for Younger abstention. The state proceedings involve an important state interest, the licensing of
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 7 of 8

8
dentists, which looks to state law for resolution. Plaintiff has not shown that the state court does
not provide an adequate forum to hear his claims regarding alleged due process violations during
the administrative proceedings.
Conclusion
Plaintiff has not shown that any of the exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity apply
in this case and has not shown that Younger is not applicable to this case. The Court concludes it
does not have jurisdiction over this case.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213,
1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because
the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a
disposition on the merits of the underlying claims.”) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discovery Conference, Doc. 14, filed December 2, 2025, and a
Motion for Change of Venue, Doc. 15, filed December 3, 2025. The Court denies both Motions
because the Court is dismissing this case.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Conference, Doc. 14, filed December 2, 2025, is
DENIED.
(iii) Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue, Doc. 15, filed December 3, 2025, is
DENIED.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00730-SMD-SCY Document 16 Filed 12/29/25 Page 8 of 8