{
  "id": 1566587,
  "name": "Anderson CARTER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF LAS CRUCES, New Mexico, and Ruben Smith, in his capacity as Mayor, and Bruno Zaldo, in his official capacity as City Manager, and Herculano Ferralez, Gene Kennon, Jack Valencia, Henry Benavidez, Tommy Tomlin, and John Haltom, in their capacities as City Councilors, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carter v. City of Las Cruces",
  "decision_date": "1996-03-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 15897",
  "first_page": "580",
  "last_page": "584",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 N.M. 580"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "915 P.2d 336"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "115 A.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "breach of fiduciary duty, restitution"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.J. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.",
      "case_ids": [
        1343566
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "breach of fiduciary duty, restitution"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj/18/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2830160
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "472",
          "parenthetical": "\"It seems fundamental that a plaintiff has standing to protect himself against injury as a result of unlawful governmental action, even in the absence of a controlling statute or constitutional provision.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "1323",
          "parenthetical": "\"It seems fundamental that a plaintiff has standing to protect himself against injury as a result of unlawful governmental action, even in the absence of a controlling statute or constitutional provision.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0469-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.M. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2839152
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "589",
          "parenthetical": "abolishing common law sovereign immunity for tort actions, citing Sangre de Cristo"
        },
        {
          "page": "1154",
          "parenthetical": "abolishing common law sovereign immunity for tort actions, citing Sangre de Cristo"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/88/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "880 P.2d 867",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.M. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.M. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1563503
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "468-69"
        },
        {
          "page": "59-60"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/118/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N.M. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1590285
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "687"
        },
        {
          "page": "1254"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/109/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 F.3d 1417",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        7413260
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1420-21"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f3d/41/1417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "506 U.S. 103",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11925002
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "107-12",
          "parenthetical": "discussion of standards for determining whether party awarded nominal damages in \u00a7 1983 action should be awarded attorney fees"
        },
        {
          "page": "571-73",
          "parenthetical": "discussion of standards for determining whether party awarded nominal damages in \u00a7 1983 action should be awarded attorney fees"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "discussion of standards for determining whether party awarded nominal damages in \u00a7 1983 action should be awarded attorney fees"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/506/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "435 U.S. 247",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        2517
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "266-67"
        },
        {
          "page": "1053-54"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/435/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "807 F.Supp. 107",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        7403998
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108"
        },
        {
          "page": "108"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/807/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "894 F.2d 1210",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10539867
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1215-16"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/894/1210-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "962 F.2d 1517",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10526767
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1526-27"
        },
        {
          "page": "1526-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/962/1517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "975 F.2d 646",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10516133
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "647"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/975/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 B.C.L.Rev. 578",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "B.C. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Tex.L.Rev. 863",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "Tex. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 UCLA L.Rev. 565",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "UCLA L. Rev.",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Cal.L.Rev. 1104",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "Cal. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 L.Ed.2d 15",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 S.Ct. 64",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "469 U.S. 806",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11963296,
        11963621,
        11963559,
        11963690,
        11963244,
        11963344,
        11963508,
        11963448,
        11963390
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/469/0806-02",
        "/us/469/0806-08",
        "/us/469/0806-07",
        "/us/469/0806-09",
        "/us/469/0806-01",
        "/us/469/0806-03",
        "/us/469/0806-06",
        "/us/469/0806-05",
        "/us/469/0806-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 Cal.Rptr. 877",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "883"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 Cal.App.3d 693",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2121442
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-app-3d/151/0693-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "694 F.Supp. 814",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        5893925
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "817-18"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/694/0814-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Or. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Or.",
      "case_ids": [
        2181869
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "en banc"
        },
        {
          "page": "174-75",
          "parenthetical": "en banc"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/299/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 A.2d 673",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1953,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "677-78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.J. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329498
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj/13/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 L.Ed.2d 26",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 S.Ct. 822",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "439 U.S. 1060",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11442368,
        11442246,
        11442216,
        11442281,
        11442412,
        11442323,
        11442423
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/439/1060-05",
        "/us/439/1060-02",
        "/us/439/1060-01",
        "/us/439/1060-03",
        "/us/439/1060-06",
        "/us/439/1060-04",
        "/us/439/1060-07"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "380 N.E.2d 628",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "635-39"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "376 Mass. 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        332087
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/376/0178-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "551 P.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "8-9",
          "parenthetical": "Tobriner, J."
        },
        {
          "page": "13-16"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Cal.Rptr. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "704-05",
          "parenthetical": "Tobriner, J."
        },
        {
          "page": "709-12"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Cal.3d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2292852
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Tobriner, J."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-3d/17/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "540 So.2d 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        7544327
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "154"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/540/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 F.Supp. 357",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        4039507
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "360-61"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/459/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1207",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "U. Pa. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "436 U.S. 658",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1490618
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "692",
          "parenthetical": "quoting the language of \u00a7 1983"
        },
        {
          "page": "2036",
          "parenthetical": "quoting the language of \u00a7 1983"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting the language of \u00a7 1983"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/436/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "445 U.S. 622",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1777480
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "648-49"
        },
        {
          "page": "1413-15"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/445/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 L.Ed.2d 700",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S.Ct. 753",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N.M. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1559013
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "105-06"
        },
        {
          "page": "1243-44"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/120/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 U.S. 356",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12123304
      ],
      "weight": 7,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "372-73",
          "parenthetical": "applying the Supremacy Clause to a \u00a7 1983 claim brought in state court"
        },
        {
          "page": "2440-41",
          "parenthetical": "applying the Supremacy Clause to a \u00a7 1983 claim brought in state court"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "applying the Supremacy Clause to a \u00a7 1983 claim brought in state court"
        },
        {
          "page": "367"
        },
        {
          "page": "2438"
        },
        {
          "page": "383"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/496/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 U.S. 277",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11306021
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/444/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 L.Ed.2d 400",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.Ct. 1900",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "411 U.S. 938",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        10149,
        9894,
        10250,
        9721,
        9774,
        10064,
        9969,
        10034,
        10041
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/411/0938-05",
        "/us/411/0938-06",
        "/us/411/0938-09",
        "/us/411/0938-04",
        "/us/411/0938-07",
        "/us/411/0938-03",
        "/us/411/0938-02",
        "/us/411/0938-08",
        "/us/411/0938-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2768763
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "347"
        },
        {
          "page": "327"
        },
        {
          "page": "347"
        },
        {
          "page": "327"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0343-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1038,
    "char_count": 17725,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.68,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3984811525238153e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6442271344777244
    },
    "sha256": "386053a5545a2a455b0f59980bd6e2a6f8388c9a2663d03b5176e189fcb70699",
    "simhash": "1:736bf81609969d1e",
    "word_count": 2845
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:10:36.348901+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HARTZ and BUSTAMANTE, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Anderson CARTER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF LAS CRUCES, New Mexico, and Ruben Smith, in his capacity as Mayor, and Bruno Zaldo, in his official capacity as City Manager, and Herculano Ferralez, Gene Kennon, Jack Valencia, Henry Benavidez, Tommy Tomlin, and John Haltom, in their capacities as City Councilors, Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nBOSSON, Judge.\n1. The City of Las Cruces called a municipal election to decide whether the City should acquire a private electric utility either by negotiated purchase or eminent domain. Plaintiff, a local citizen taxpayer, opposed the acquisition. He filed suit to enjoin the City and various municipal officials from expending public funds as part of a mass media campaign to promote a favorable vote in the election. Plaintiff alleged a violation of various state and federal statutory and constitutional provisions including the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988 (1988). The district court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In so doing, the court erred, and we reverse. We also hold on an issue of first impression that, even if injunctive relief has been rendered moot by the election, the potential for nominal damages under \u00a7 1983 presents a continuing justiciable controversy which is not moot. We therefore remand for further proceedings.\nFACTS\n2. The City passed a resolution on July 5, 1994, calling for a special election on August 30, 1994. On August 9,1994, Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory relief and temporary and permanent injunction together with a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff alleged that City officials were biased in favor of the utility acquisition and were wrongfully using public funds in a partisan fashion to promote a favorable vote. More specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the City used public funds to hire advertising firms, conduct public opinion surveys, hire personnel, assign public employees, and make public facilities available, all for partisan purposes as distinguished from simply educational or informational purposes. Toward that end, the City allegedly used public funds to purchase such things as brochures, yard signs, billboards?- and advertising on television, radio, and newspaper. The City was even alleged to have registered as a political action committee. Plaintiff charged the City with wrongfully spending or setting aside for expenditure over $80,000 in public funds.\n3. In his lawsuit, Plaintiff claimed the City violated various state statutes dealing with campaign practices and municipal elections (citing NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 1-19-1 to -36 (Repl.1995) and NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 3-8-1 to -80 (Repl.1995)) as well as certain municipal ordinances and regulations regarding local elections and campaign practices. Plaintiff also claimed a violation of the United States Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments and art. IV, \u00a7 4 which guarantees to every state a republican form of government. Plaintiff further cited to various provisions of the New Mexico Constitution, including art. II, \u00a7 18 (equal protection and due process); art. II, \u00a7 17 (freedom of expression); and art. II, \u00a7 8 (free and open elections).\n4. On August 15, 1994, the district court conducted a hearing and dismissed Plaintiffs petition for want of subject matter jurisdiction. At the hearing, the court expressed its reliance on Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343, 347, 503 P.2d 323, 327 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938, 93 S.Ct. 1900, 36 L.Ed.2d 400 (1973), a case which held under state law that principles of common law sovereign immunity preclude a state court from issuing an injunction against a municipality. After his claim was dismissed in state court, Plaintiff then filed suit in federal court seeking the same injunctive relief on similar grounds. However, the federal court elected to abstain in the hope that the state court would reconsider its dismissal and decide Plaintiffs case on state law grounds, thereby making it unnecessary to decide the federal constitutional claims. On August 30, 1994, the very day of the special election, Plaintiff returned to state court with a motion for reconsideration as well as a request for leave to file an amended complaint expanding relief to include compensatory damages. On September 13,1994, the court denied all of Plaintiffs requests. Plaintiff timely appealed from both orders.\nDISCUSSION\nFederal Claims\n5. Initially, we decide whether the district court was correct in dismissing the federal constitutional claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Section 1983 reads, in part:\nEvery person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.\nIt is settled that state and federal courts share concurrent jurisdiction over \u00a7 1983 claims for the denial of federal constitutional rights. See Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 283 n. 7, 100 S.Ct. 553, 558 n. 7, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). State courts share responsibility for the application and enforcement of federal law as part of our American system of federalism. Howlett By and Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 372-73, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 2440-41, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990) (applying the Supremacy Clause to a \u00a7 1983 claim brought in state court).\nFederal law is enforceable in state courts not because Congress has determined that federal courts would otherwise be burdened or that state courts might provide a more convenient forum \u2014 although both might well be true \u2014 -but because the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the state legislature. The Supremacy Clause makes those laws \u201cthe supreme Law of the Land,\u201d and charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce that law according to their regular modes of procedure.\nId. at 367, 110 S.Ct. at 2438. New Mexico state courts are open to \u00a7 1983 claims at least to the same degree as are federal courts. See, e.g., Daddow v. Carlsbad Mun. Sch. Dist., 120 N.M. 97, 898 P.2d 1235 (1995), cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 753, 133 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996).\n6. When common law defenses like sovereign immunity are asserted against a \u00a7 1983 action, they are governed by federal law regardless of whether they might be permitted under state law. Howlett, 496 U.S. at 383, 110 S.Ct. at 2446-M7; Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 648-49, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1413-15, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). The United States Supreme Court has held that a municipality is a \u201cperson\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 1983, and therefore may be held \u201c \u2018liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.\u2019 \u201d Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (quoting the language of \u00a7 1983). Accordingly, New Mexico state courts must entertain \u00a7 1983 claims against municipalities, and state law sovereign immunity is neither a defense nor a bar to subject matter jurisdiction. See Martinez, 444 U.S. at 284 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. at 558-59 n. 8; cf. Daddow, 120 N.M. at 105-06, 898 P.2d at 1243-44 (local school board is a \u201cperson\u201d under \u00a7 1983 and may be sued in New Mexico state court). In the case before us, the district court erroneously dismissed Plaintiffs \u00a7 1983 claims for just this reason, and therefore the decision must be reversed. See generally Sheldon H. Nah-mod, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation \u00a7 1.14 (3d ed. 1991); Charles A. Wright, Law of Federal Courts \u00a7 45, at 287-92 (5th ed. 1994) (state enforcement of federal law); Kenneth J. Wilbur, Comment, Concurrent Jurisdiction and Attorney\u2019s Fees: The Obligation of State Courts to Hear Section 1983 Claims, 134 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1207 (1986).\n7. Although the court below based its dismissal on a lack of jurisdiction and not on a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the district court nonetheless intimated serious reservations about the viability of Plaintiffs constitutional claims. On this appeal, we need not and do not decide whether Plaintiff states a valid claim for violation of federal constitutional rights. That question is for the district court to address in the first instance. However, because we are remanding this case for further proceedings, we do observe that Plaintiffs claims under the United States Constitution are not without support. See Mountain States Legal Found. v. Denver Sch. Dist. No. 1, 459 F.Supp. 357, 360-61 (D.Colo.1978); Palm Beach County v. Hudspeth, 540 So.2d 147, 154 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989). In addition, a number of judicial authorities, although resting their holdings on other grounds, such as state law, find support in the constitution for the general proposition that, at some threshold level, a public entity must refrain from spending public funds to promote a partisan position during an election campaign. See, e.g., Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal.3d 206, 130 Cal.Rptr. 697, 704-05, 551 P.2d 1, 8-9 (1976) (Tobriner, J.); Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178, 380 N.E.2d 628, 635-39 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1060, 99 S.Ct. 822, 59 L.Ed.2d 26 (1979); Citizens to Protect Pub. Funds v. Board of Educ., 13 N.J. 172, 98 A.2d 673, 677-78 (1953); Burt v. Blumenauer, 299 Or. 55, 699 P.2d 168, 174-75 (1985) (en banc); cf. Alabama Libertarian Party v. City of Birmingham, 694 F.Supp. 814, 817-18 (N.D.Ala.1988); Miller v. California Comm\u2019n on Status of Women, 151 Cal.App.3d 693, 198 Cal.Rptr. 877, 883 (Ct.), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 806, 105 S.Ct. 64, 83 L.Ed.2d 15 (1984). Also, several commentators have suggested that the federal Constitution prohibits governmental entities from spending public funds to promote particular positions in certain circumstances. See generally Robert D. Kamenshine, The First Amendment\u2019s Implied Political Establishment Clause, 67 Cal.L.Rev. 1104 (1979); Steven Shiffrin, Government Speech, 27 UCLA L.Rev. 565 (1980); Mark G. Yudof, When Governments Speak: Toward a Theory of Government Expression and the First Amendment, 57 Tex.L.Rev. 863 (1979); Edward H. Ziegler, Government Speech and the Constitution: The Limits of Official Partisanship, 21 B.C.L.Rev. 578 (1980). Although it may be a fine line between education, on the one hand, and advocating a partisan position, on the other, courts have enjoined officials from crossing it. In one instance, the California Supreme Court noted the possibility of requiring an official to reimburse the public treasury for public funds spent over-zealously in this fashion. Mott, 130 Cal.Rptr. at 709-12, 551 P.2d at 13-16. We also note the parallel observations of Judge Parker of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico in a companion case to this one regarding constitutional problems which may arise,\nwhere governments and governmental employees go beyond either, one, providing neutral information about issues on a ballot or, two, expressing personal views on election issues, as any citizen has the right to do under the First Amendment, going beyond that to the point of using public funds derived in part from taxes paid by those holding opposing views to advocate how the county electorate should vote on the election issue. So I think that there is some law supporting plaintiffs constitutional claims.\nMootness\n8. The City suggests that even if the district court did have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs \u00a7 1983 claims and dismissed them in error, the case is now moot because the election has come and gone. We disagree.\n9. In addition to injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs original complaint requested an award of costs and attorney fees, plus \u201c[a]ny and all further relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled, and which this Court deems just and proper.\u201d Plaintiff then attempted unsuccessfully to amend his complaint to add a request for compensatory damages. Recent federal eases have held that a claim for past violation of constitutional rights may entitle a party to nominal damages, and that possibility protects a \u00a7 1983 claim from mootness whether or not injunctive or declaratory relief is still available. See Yniguez v. Arizona, 975 F.2d 646, 647 (9th Cir.1992); Committee for the First Amendment v. Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1526-27 (10th Cir.1992); O\u2019Connor v. City & County of Denver, 894 F.2d 1210, 1215-16 (10th Cir.1990); Griffith v. Teran, 807 F.Supp. 107, 108 (D.Kan.1992); see also Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-67, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1053-54, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). This is true even when the complaint does not specifically request nominal damages but merely requests all relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. See Yniguez, 975 F.2d at 647 n. 1.\n10. If Plaintiff can persuade the district court that the City violated the federal constitution, then, \u201c[i]f proven, a violation of First Amendment rights concerning freedom of expression entitles a plaintiff to at least nominal damages.\u201d Campbell, 962 F.2d at 1526-27. In the event Plaintiff on remand is allowed to amend the complaint and add compensatory damages, his claim would become all the more justiciable. \u201cA claim for nominal damages arising from past constitutional violations is sufficient to prevent dismissal for mootness even though the claim for injunctive relief has been rendered moot.\u201d Griffith, 807 F.Supp. at 108. For these reasons, we cannot agree with the City that this case is moot just because the election has already been held.\n11. In addition, Plaintiff may have a claim for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988. An award of nominal damages in a \u00a7 1983 lawsuit makes the plaintiff the \u201cprevailing party\u201d and may justify attorney fees. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 107-12, 113 S.Ct. 566, 571-73, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (discussion of standards for determining whether party awarded nominal damages in \u00a7 1983 action should be awarded attorney fees); Koopman v. Water Dist. No. 1, 41 F.3d 1417, 1420-21 (10th Cir.1994) (remand to determine attorney fees where plaintiffs lawsuit precipitated constructive changes in the legal system, yet plaintiff only recovered one dollar in nominal damages). See generally Nahmod, supra, \u00a7 10.02. Given the early stage of this case, we intimate no opinion as to whether an award of attorney fees might ultimately be appropriate.\nState Claims\n12. We resolve the justiciability of Plaintiffs state law claims in a different fashion. New Mexico district courts have general jurisdiction over disputes arising under state laws as well as the state Constitution. See N.M. Const. art. VI, \u00a7 13; Sundance Mechanical & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 109 N.M. 683, 687, 789 P.2d 1250, 1254 (1990); State v. Bailey, 118 N.M. 466, 468-69, 882 P.2d 57, 59-60 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 118 N.M. 256, 880 P.2d 867 (1994). At one time, common law sovereign immunity was perceived as an exception to the general rule, barring state court jurisdiction over claims against a municipality even for injunctive relief. See Sangre de Cristo Dev. Corp., 84 N.M. at 347, 503 P.2d at 327. That \u201carchaic principle\u201d is no longer the law in New Mexico. See Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 589, 544 P.2d 1153, 1154 (1975) (abolishing common law sovereign immunity for tort actions, citing Sangre de Cristo); DeVargas Sav. & Loan Ass\u2019n v. Campbell, 87 N.M. 469, 472, 535 P.2d 1320, 1323 (1975) (\u201cIt seems fundamental that a plaintiff has standing to protect himself against injury as a result of unlawful governmental action, even in the absence of a controlling statute or constitutional provision.\u201d); see also NMSA 1978, \u00a7 41-4-17 (Repl. Pamp.1989) (\u201cNothing in this section [of the Tort Claims Act] shall be construed to prohibit any proceedings for ... injunction^]\u201d). Therefore, we observe that the district court did have jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs state law claims and wrongfully dismissed them on jurisdictional grounds.\n13. However, the events of August 30, 1994, have rendered moot Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief. Unlike federal law, New Mexico has no statute analogous to \u00a7 1983 that would provide for damages against government entities or their officials for past violations of state statutes or the state Constitution. Cf. Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, \u00a7 41\u20144-12 (Repl.Pamp.1989) (authorizing damages actions for deprivation of rights under the constitution and laws of the United States or New Mexico but only against law enforcement officers). Plaintiff has not sought relief under any other potential theory of damages, and accordingly we do not address the merits of any such claim. See, e.g., Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d 8 (1955) (breach of fiduciary duty, restitution). Therefore, without a viable claim for damages under state law, Plaintiffs present state law claims are moot and no longer justiciable. We cannot reverse even though the district court erred in dismissing them.\n14. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Plaintiffs federal claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs state law claims.\n15. IT IS SO ORDERED.\nHARTZ and BUSTAMANTE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BOSSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lawrence R. White, Joel T. Newton, Las Cruces, for Appellant.",
      "Harry S. (Pete) Connelly, Las Cruces, William L. Lutz, Las Cruces, for Appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "915 P.2d 336\nAnderson CARTER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF LAS CRUCES, New Mexico, and Ruben Smith, in his capacity as Mayor, and Bruno Zaldo, in his official capacity as City Manager, and Herculano Ferralez, Gene Kennon, Jack Valencia, Henry Benavidez, Tommy Tomlin, and John Haltom, in their capacities as City Councilors, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 15897.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 8, 1996.\nCertiorari Denied April 23, 1996.\nLawrence R. White, Joel T. Newton, Las Cruces, for Appellant.\nHarry S. (Pete) Connelly, Las Cruces, William L. Lutz, Las Cruces, for Appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0580-01",
  "first_page_order": 620,
  "last_page_order": 624
}