Boyd v. United States of America et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JAMES SCOTT BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 2:25-cv-0964 JB/DLM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff James Scott Boyd’s Rule 16(c) Motion
for Prescheduling Case-Management Order Identifying Controlling Jurisdictional Precedent and
Requiring any Jurisdictional Challenge to be Identified before Dispositive or Merits Motions.
(Doc. 32.) Defendants United States of America, United States Department of the Interior, and
United States Department of Justice (collectively the “Federal Defendants”) oppose Plaintiff’s
motion. (Doc. 33.) In addition, Defendant Elephant Butte Irrigation District (“Elephant Butte”)
filed a response opposing Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 34.)1 Plaintiff filed a reply, and the motion is
fully briefed. After review and consideration of the filings, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff asserts that he brings his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c).
(Doc. 32 at 2.) He further states that he “does not seek an advisory opinion, does not ask the Court
to resolve disputed facts, and does not seek to preclude Defendants from raising defenses.” (Id.)
Plaintiff, however, states that he wants “a pre-scheduling case-management order that (1) identifies
the jurisdictional authorities on which the Complaint relies, and (2) requires Defendants—before
1 The Court notes that although Defendants State of New Mexico and the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer
(collectively, the “State Defendants”) filed a joinder to the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 53), they did
not file or join a response to the present motion.
Case 2:25-cv-00964-MIS-DLM Document 61 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
filing any dispositive or merits-based motion—to identify any constitutional, statutory, or judicial
authority they contend negates or displaces those jurisdictional foundations.” (Id.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is improper because (1) Plaintiff failed to confer
prior to filing the motion; and (2) Plaintiff’s motion is not authorized by the cited rule, is premature,
and seeks to impose restrictions on dispositive motions in contravention of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (See Docs. 33; 34.) Defendants are correct. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s
motion.
Pursuant to District of New Mexico Local Rule 7.1(a), when filing a motion, a “[m]ovant
must determine whether a motion is opposed, and a motion that omits recitation of a good-faith
request for concurrence may be summarily denied.” Here, Plaintiff did not contact any of
Defendants’ counsel of record and did not set forth a recitation of whether the motion was opposed.
Thus, the motion could be summarily denied on this basis. Nevertheless, Defendants contend that
had Plaintiff contacted them, they would have opposed the motion. And Defendants filed responses
to Plaintiff’s motion asserting why they oppose the motion. Because the parties “have already fully
briefed the motion,” the Court, for purposes of judicial economy, will resolve the motion. See
Patrick Indus., Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 1:25-cv-0813 KG/LF, 2026 WL 184536, at *2 (D.N.M.
Jan. 23, 2026) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c) to support his motion. This rule,
however, does not authorize his motion. Instead, it governs “attendance and matters for
consideration at a pretrial conference.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). In this case, the Court has not set a
Rule 16(c) conference, and the case has not progressed to a stage where such a conference would
be appropriate. When Plaintiff filed the motion, service had not yet been completed on all
Defendants, and the Court later issued Orders to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to perfect service
Case 2:25-cv-00964-MIS-DLM Document 61 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
or show good cause for any failure to do so. (See Docs. 37; 43.) Nor would it have been appropriate
for the Court to proceed to Rule 26(f) activities or a Rule 16 scheduling process at that time, as
Rule 26(f) requires the parties to meet and confer before a scheduling conference is held or a
scheduling order is due. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1) (requiring that a conference be held “at least
21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule
16(b)”); D.N.M.L.R-Civ. 16.1 (stating that following the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the
parties must complete a joint status report and then “the Court will enter a scheduling order setting
all pre-trial case management deadlines.”); see also Enriquez v. Dona Ana Cnty. Det. Ctr., No.
1:24-cv-0805 DHU/JFR, 2025 WL 605011, at *3 (D.N.M. Feb. 25, 2025) (denying motion for
pretrial conference as premature where service was incomplete and scheduling had not begun).
Because the Court has not yet issued an Initial Scheduling Order and the Rule 26(f) meeting and
Joint Status Report process has not yet begun, the Court has not set a Rule 16(b) scheduling
conference. A Rule 16(c) pretrial conference—which occurs only after these preliminary steps and
typically after discovery has commenced—would therefore be premature. A motion to dismiss is
also currently pending. (See Docs. 52–54.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is premature and
improper.
Furthermore, it appears that Plaintiff actually seeks an advisory or preemptive ruling
because he states that he wants the Court to “require[] Defendants—before filing any dispositive
or merits-based motion—to identify any constitutional, statutory, or judicial authority they contend
negates or displaces [Plaintiff’s] jurisdictional foundations.” (Doc. 32 at 2.) Plaintiff has no basis
for such a request. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 allows a party to assert certain defenses by
motion before a responsive pleading is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (setting forth defenses that
a party may assert by motion before a responsive pleading is filed). There are no preconditions
Case 2:25-cv-00964-MIS-DLM Document 61 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
prior to the filing of such motions. Furthermore, subject matter jurisdiction is relevant throughout
the case, and a party can assert the defense at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(1); Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434–35 (2011) (noting that
even if the party previously acknowledged subject matter jurisdiction, the defense of subject matter
jurisdiction may be raised at any time). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is improper.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 16(c) Motion for Prescheduling
Case-Management Order Identifying Controlling Jurisdictional Precedent and Requiring any
Jurisdictional Challenge to be Identified before Dispositive or Merits Motions (Doc. 32) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________________
DAMIAN L. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00964-MIS-DLM Document 61 Filed 06/09/26 Page 4 of 4