William Gardner v. New Mexico Board of Dental Health, Jennifer Thompson,...

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,

In their individual and 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 individual and official capacities,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

This case arises from proceedings before the New Mexico Board of Dental Health regarding pro se 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 filed his Complaint in state court on March 31, 2025. See Complaint at 1. (“Complaint”). Defendant New Mexico Department of Justice (“NMDOJ”) removed the case to this Court on May 2, 2025. See Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.

The Court granted Defendant NMDOJ’s motion to dismiss. See Doc. 76, filed March 29, 2026. Plaintiff appealed the Court’s dismissal of his claims against NMDOJ. See Notice of Appeal, Doc. 77, filed March 29, 2026. The United States Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal on April 22, 2026, for lack of prosecution. See Order of United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Doc. 87.

Plaintiff moved to change venue of this case from the Albuquerque Division of this Court to the Las Cruces Division stating there is “bias or prejudice” in the Albuquerque Division preventing a fair trial and that potential jurors may have connections to the Defendants in Albuquerque and Santa Fe. See Motion for Change of Venue at 2-3, Doc. 63, filed December 3, 2025 (alleging the Magistrate Judge is denying Plaintiff justice and blocking Plaintiff from prosecuting this case by denying Plaintiff’s motions for pretrial conferences). The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue because Plaintiff did not show that there is bias or prejudice in the Albuquerque Division of this Court. See Order Denying Change of Venue at 2, Doc. 81, filed April 1, 2026 (stating the Magistrate Judge found good cause to delay entry of an order for a pretrial conference pending resolution of the six then-pending dispositive motions; also stating that Plaintiff will have an opportunity before trial to examine potential jurors regarding their impartiality and that the Court will determine the venue for the trial at a later date). Two days before the Tenth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s first appeal, Plaintiff filed a second Notice of Appeal. See Doc. 83, filed April 20, 2026 (stating “Plaintiff hereby appeals from the following order: (a) The last Order entered on April 1st, 2026, April 7, 2026 (DOC 81, 82) dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state [a] Claim;” citing the Court’s Orders denying Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue and granting Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his reply) (emphasis added). The only Order entered on April 1, 2026, is the Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue. Plaintiff’s second appeal remains pending.

The same day Plaintiff filed his Second Notice of Appeal, the Dental Board Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss which remains pending. See Defendants New Mexico Board of Dental Health and Individually-Named Defendants Revised Special Appearance Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service, Doc. 84, filed April 20, 2026. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief which also is pending. See Plaintiff’s Verified Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 66, filed February 6, 2026 (“Motion for Injunctive Relief”).

Plaintiff now asks the Court to: (i) clarify whether “this case is currently open and active on this Court’s docket” based on the April 22, 2026, Order of the United States Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit dismissing Plaintiff’s first appeal; and (ii) schedule a status conference. Motion for Clarification of Case Status and Request for Status Conference Following Tenth Circuit Remand at 3, Doc. 88, filed May 1, 2026.

The Court currently lacks jurisdiction to proceed on Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief and the Dental Board Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss due to Plaintiff’s second appeal which remains pending. “[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). Whether this case can proceed in the Albuquerque Division of this Court is an aspect of Plaintiff’s second appeal. Because the Court currently lacks jurisdiction over this case, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a status conference.

IT IS ORDERED that: (i) Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of Case Status and Request for Status Conference Following Tenth Circuit Remand, Doc. 88, filed May 1, 2026, is GRANTED in part as follows. The Court grants Plaintiff's request for clarification and denies Plaintiff’s request for a status conference without prejudice. (11) Plaintiff’s response to Defendants New Mexico Board of Dental Health and Individually-Named Defendants’ Revised Special Appearance Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service, Doc. 84, filed April 20, 2026, is due 14 days after the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit enters its mandate regarding Plaintiff’s Second Notice of Appeal and transfers jurisdiction back to this Court.