Hayes v. New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RANDY HAYES,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:26-cv-01082-KG-SCY
NEW MEXICO CHILDREN, YOUTH
AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT,
KIMBERLY IBARRA,
JAN TRUJILLO,
AMANDA ROMERO and
TROY GRAY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises from the alleged “unlawful removal and detention of pro se Plaintiff’s
minor child” by Defendants. Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at 7, Doc. 1,
filed April 9, 2026 (“Complaint”). It appears Plaintiff’s claims arise from two proceedings: (i)
“emergency custody proceedings” resulting in the removal of the child due to “imminent danger,”
Complaint at 8, ¶¶ 15-19; and (ii) subsequent detention of the child “despite findings of
incompetency and without proper adjudication,” Complaint at 8, ¶ 20. Defendants include the
New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (“CYFD”), CYFD employees and a state
district attorney. See Complaint at 7. Plaintiff asserts claims for due process violations,
“interference with family integrity,” unlawful seizure and detention and conspiracy. Complaint at
8-9. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, declaratory and injunctive relief. See Complaint at 9-12
United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiff of the following
deficiencies in the Complaint:
Case 1:26-cv-01082-KG-SCY Document 9 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 5

2
(i) It appears the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against CYFD and
against the CYFD employees and the state district attorney in their official
capacities due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Order to Show
Cause at 3-4, Doc. 5, filed April 21, 2026.
(ii) The Complaint generally fails to state plausible claims due to the vague and
conclusory nature of the factual allegations. The allegations in the Statement of
Facts refer to “Defendants” collectively and do not explain what each Defendant
did to Plaintiff. See Order to Show Cause at 4-5 (quoting Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each
defendant did to him or her; when [each] defendant did it; how [each] defendant’s
action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes [each]
defendant violated.”) (emphasis added).
(iii) The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to state a procedural due process
claim because the Complaint does not allege facts showing the appropriate level of
process due to Plaintiff or that Plaintiff was not afforded the appropriate level of
process. See Order to Show Cause at 5 (quoting Denver Homeless Out Loud v.
Denver, Colorado, 32 F.4th 1259, 1276 (10th Cir. 2022) ("This court asks two
questions when considering a procedural-due-process claim: (1) Did the plaintiff
possess a protected property or liberty interest to which due process protections
apply? And if so, (2) was the plaintiff afforded an appropriate level of process?”)).
(iv) The Complaint fails to state a plausible familial association claim. Judge Yarbrough
notified Plaintiff that while the allegations in the Complaint are “consistent with an
Case 1:26-cv-01082-KG-SCY Document 9 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 5

3
unwarranted intrusion in the relationship between Plaintiff and his child” they are
not sufficient to state a plausible familial association claim because the Complaint
does not contain allegations showing that Defendants’ removal of the child was
unwarranted. Order to Show Cause at 5-6 (quoting Doe v. Woodard, 912 F.3d 1278,
1300-01 (10th Cir. 2019) (“To state a [familial association] claim, Ms. Doe must
have alleged that (1) the Defendants intended to deprive her of her protected
relationship with her daughter; and that (2) the Defendants either unduly burdened
Ms. Doe's protected relationship or effected an “unwarranted intrusion” into that
relationship”)).
(v) The Complaint fails to state plausible Section 1983 and civil conspiracy claims
because the Complaint does not allege any facts showing that there was “an
agreement to accomplish an unlawful purpose.” Order to Show Cause at 6-7
(quoting Bledsoe v. Carreno, 53 F.4th 589, 609 (10th Cir. 2022) (To state a Section
1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff has to allege “specific facts showing an
agreement [upon a common, unconstitutional goal], and concerted action [taken to
advance that goal”] among defendants”)).
(vi) It appears that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant District Attorney Troy Gray may
be barred by prosecutorial immunity.
Judge Yarbrough ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for
the reasons stated above or file an amended complaint. See Order to Show Cause at 8, 10.
Plaintiff filed a “Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” which the Court liberally
construes as a Response to the Order to Show Cause because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and
Defendants have not appeared in this case. See Doc. 8, filed May 7, 2026 (“Response”). Plaintiff
Case 1:26-cv-01082-KG-SCY Document 9 Filed 05/18/26 Page 3 of 5

4
did not file an amended complaint. Plaintiff also filed his First Requests for Production of
Documents to Defendants and a Motion to Compel Production of Documents. See Doc’s 6-7, filed
May 7, 2026.
Plaintiff asserts that “Defendants knowingly submitted false or misleading information to
justify removal and detention” and that “Government officials are not entitled to qualified
immunity when they knowingly violate constitutional rights or fabricate evidence.” Response at 2.
Plaintiff does not address Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity or prosecutorial immunity.
Plaintiff argues that he has stated plausible claims for relief because:
Plaintiff’s complaint provides specific factual allegations regarding:
The timeline of events
The individuals involved
The actions taken under color of state law
These allegations are sufficient to proceed to discovery.
Response at 2. Plaintiff has not, however, cited any authority showing he is not required to comply
with the directive of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that a complaint must
explain what each Defendant did to Plaintiff. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at
Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff asserts he adequately alleged a due process claim because Plaintiff alleged that:
The child was in a stable and known environment
CYFD had prior knowledge of the family’s circumstances
No immediate danger existed
These facts, if proven, establish that the removal violated due process
protections.
Response at 2.
Plaintiff asserts he has alleged a violation of his familial association rights stating
“Defendants interfered with this right by removing Plaintiff’s child absent exigent circumstances
Case 1:26-cv-01082-KG-SCY Document 9 Filed 05/18/26 Page 4 of 5

5
or evidence of imminent danger.” Response at 1-2. Plaintiff has not identified any allegations in
the Complaint showing that Defendants’ removal of the child was otherwise unwarranted.
Plaintiff’s Response does not address the absence of facts showing that there was an
agreement to accomplish an unlawful purpose which are required to state a plausible conspiracy
claim.
The Court dismisses this case because Plaintiff’s Response does not show that the Court
should not dismiss this case and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint that remedies the
deficiencies identified by Judge Yarbrough. Because it is dismissing this case, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s motions for the production of documents.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(ii) The following motions are DENIED:
(a) Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants,
Doc. 6, filed May 7, 2026; and
(b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Doc. 7, filed
May 7, 2026.
/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 1:26-cv-01082-KG-SCY Document 9 Filed 05/18/26 Page 5 of 5