Lawsuit: Guards beat, taunt inmate with, 'You can't breathe' - By Morgan Lee Associated Press
Advocates for prisoners' rights have filed a civil rights lawsuit against state corrections officers who allegedly ignored requirements that they videotape a prison-cell encounter with an inmate who says he was sexually abused, beaten without provocation and taunted with words that evoked the 2020 death of George Floyd at the hands of police.
The New Mexico Prison & Jail Project filed the lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages in U.S. District Court on behalf of a Black inmate against five state Corrections Department officers, in an April 2021 confrontation at the Northeast New Mexico Correctional Facility in Clayton.
The advocacy group reconstructed events from the testimony of the plaintiff and other inmate witnesses, along with unredacted portions of an internal investigation by the Correction Department's Office of Professional Conduct. The Associated Press does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault unless they consent to be named.
Officers told investigators that the inmate was restrained physically and with pepper spray after swinging an elbow at an officer. They denied the inmate's account of abuses.
The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was face-down on the ground, when a corrections officer placed a foot on his back and said, "Let me guess, you can't breathe."
Attorneys for the Prison & Jail Project say the date of the encounter on April 15, 2021, corresponded with the murder trial of former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin in the killing of Floyd. Chauvin pinned Floyd to the ground with his knee for 9 1/2 minutes. The case centered around excruciating bystander video of Floyd gasping repeatedly, "I can't breathe." The case triggered worldwide protests and a reexamination of racism and policing in the U.S.
Chauvin was convicted of murder and manslaughter on April 20, 2021.
Several officers involved in the New Mexico altercation acknowledged to Corrections Department investigators that a video camera should have been used inside the cell.
"Its use could have prevented questions, provided answers and the truth would have come out," one officer told investigators.
Prison & Jail Project Director Steven Robert Allen said video recordings were required because the use of force by corrections officers was planned and not reactive. The Corrections Department declined to release a copy of its policy to the AP.
Corrections Department spokeswoman Carmelina Hart said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. She said four corrections officers out of five in the complaint still work at the agency.
The lawsuit alleges that corrections officers retaliated against the plaintiff after he spoke out earlier in support of another inmate who was surrounded by officers. Those events also are chronicled in a separate 2022 lawsuit alleging battery and sexual abuse by corrections officers against another inmate.
The new lawsuit says at least five corrections officers and a manager later entered the plaintiff's cell and ordered a cellmate to leave.
The lawsuit alleges that one officer pushed his crotch up against the plaintiff's backside. It says the plaintiff objected and wasn't provoked into retaliating, but he was thrown to the ground, beaten and taunted further.
The inmate in New Mexico "thought he was going to die, and why wouldn't he?" Allen said. "That kind of terrorizing of a Black prisoner in a prison here in New Mexico is completely unacceptable."
The lawsuit alleges battery, cruel and unusual punishment and violations of free speech rights, seeking unspecified compensation.
The inmate initially filed an administrative complaint under provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. It is unclear whether officers were disciplined. No criminal charges have been filed. The inmate is serving a sentence after pleading guilty to armed robbery in 2016.
Scientists challenge US wildlife director's qualifications - By Susan Montoya Bryan And Matthew Brown Associated Press
Dozens of scientists from universities and environmental groups are pushing for the removal of the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, claiming she lacks the educational background required to run the agency despite securing Senate confirmation last year.
The concerns over the credentials of service Director Martha Williams were outlined in a letter from 100 scientists sent Wednesday to President Joe Biden and U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
Williams is an attorney who majored in philosophy, and her critics claim she does not have the science-based education that federal law says is required for the position. Government attorneys have rejected allegations she's not credentialed, but they have not disputed her lack of a science degree.
There was no discussion of Williams' educational qualifications during her Senate confirmation hearing. She was confirmed on a voice vote in February 2022 with bipartisan support.
The call for her resignation or dismissal comes as Biden faces growing pressure from some wildlife advocates who contend the administration has not done enough to protect endangered plants and animals from extinction.
Many of the scientists named in the letter also have been involved in efforts to retain federal protections for threatened grizzly bears in Western states and gray wolves across most of the nation.
Williams came to the Biden administration from Montana, where hunting wolves is legal. She said during her confirmation hearing that the grizzly bear population around Yellowstone National Park has recovered, putting her at odds with wildlife advocates.
The battle over her qualifications has simmered since she was announced as Biden's pick in late 2021. The Interior Department's solicitor and inspector general dismissed complaints over the matter, but still pending in federal court is a lawsuit that focuses on the educational requirements outlined by Congress when it overhauled the wildlife agency in 1974.
Federal law says only someone with "scientific education and experience" can be appointed director of the service.
Williams has a bachelor's in philosophy from the University of Virginia and a law degree from the University of Montana, according to congressional records and the Department of Interior.
She worked as an attorney at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for more than two decades, then led the state agency for three years before being named principal deputy director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service following Biden's election. During the Obama administration, she was a deputy solicitor at the Interior Department for two years.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to multiple emails about her qualifications. Interior spokesperson Melissa Schwartz declined comment on the letter and the White House did not immediately respond.
Attorneys for the Biden administration said in court filings that the law requires Williams' education to be considered "cumulatively" with her experience.
"She clearly has the requisite background," they wrote.
A spokesperson for Montana Sen. Steve Daines said Wednesday that the Republican lawmaker stood by his vote for Williams.
Montana U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, said that since her confirmation, Williams "has brought collaborative, science-based solutions to the tough problems facing our wildlife and public lands."
The scientists calling for her ouster say they're concerned the administration is setting a precedent by sidestepping the scientific education requirement.
They claim Williams is serving in contradiction to the administration's own policies and ethics rules. They pointed to an assessment done by Biden's Scientific Integrity Task Force that suggests executive branch positions should be filled by candidates with appropriate credentials and that violations of scientific integrity policies should be taken as seriously as violations of ethics rules.
The scientists include Dave Parsons, who led government efforts to reintroduce the endangered Mexican gray wolf in the Southwest; two board members and a scientist with Silver Spring, Maryland-based Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; well-known biology professors Paul and Anne Ehrlich at Stanford University; and wolf experts William Ripple and Robert Beschta from Oregon State University.
With the exception of Williams, every director since the agency was overhauled in the 1970s had a scientific education, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
"I see this appointment as a tipping point, where politics will forever override statutory credentials," said Parsons, who authored the letter.
In the lawsuit challenging her confirmation, Illinois lawyer Robert Aland claimed decisions made by Williams would be "contaminated" since she was appointed illegally. Wildlife "could suffer the most serious adverse consequences" as a result, he said.
A judge dismissed the case over jurisdictional issues and did not address the dispute over education. Aland has appealed.
Aland previously sued the agency over its attempts to lift protections for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Federal judges restored protections in both instances, but a new proposal to lift protections is under consideration by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency is planning a new rule that could lift protections for gray wolves in early 2024.
Some of the scientists in Wednesday's letter said the decisions on bears and wolves are up to Williams. They said her qualifications could be used as an argument in future litigation over the species.
Williams is not the first to have her qualifications questioned. Under former President Donald Trump, political appointee Greg Sheehan oversaw Fish and Wildlife for more than a year as the agency's deputy director at a time when no director was in place.
Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke unsuccessfully sought to make Sheehan acting director, but government officials said he did not have the science degree required for the position under federal law. Sheehan stepped down in 2018 and was never formally nominated.
Before Trump nominee Aurelia Skipwith was confirmed for the post in 2019, environmental groups objected in part because she had studied molecular biology and not wildlife specifically. The Center for Biological Diversity called her an "industry shill" because of Skipwith's past work with the chemical company Monsanto.
Center for Biological Diversity government affairs director Brett Hartl said the group knew about Williams' lack of a degree, but decided nevertheless to support her.
He said his group believed having "an outside person" serve as director would offer a better opportunity to solve deep cultural issues that have plagued the agency over the years. Hartl agreed that the law requires a science degree but said the Senate has the ultimate authority to decide who's qualified.
Despite the early support for Williams, Hartl said his group has been disappointed with the Biden administration's failure to replace a Trump-era rule that weakened protections for many species.
"To me, that's the stuff she should be evaluated on," he said. "We've been fairly underwhelmed thus far at her tenure."
Juul Labs agrees to pay $462 million settlement to 6 states - By Karen Matthews Associated Press
Electronic cigarette-maker Juul Labs Inc. will pay $462 million to six states and the District of Columbia, marking the largest settlement the company has reached so far for its role in the youth vaping surge, the attorneys general in several states announced Wednesday.
The agreement with New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Washington, D.C. is the latest in a string of recent legal agreements Juul has reached to settle lawsuits related to the way it marketed addictive nicotine products. Critics said Juul was trying to lure children too young to smoke.
Like some other settlements reached by Juul, this latest includes restrictions on the marketing and distribution of the company's vaping products. For example, it is barred from any direct or indirect marketing that targets youth, which includes anyone under age 35. Juul will also limit the amount of purchases customers can make in retail stores and online.
"Juul lit a nationwide public health crisis by putting addictive products in the hands of minors and convincing them that it's harmless," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. "Today they are paying the price for the harm they caused."
A spokesperson for Juul said with Wednesday's settlement, the Washington D.C.-based company was "nearing total resolution of the company's historical legal challenges and securing certainty for our future."
The spokesperson added that underage use of Juul products has declined by 95% since 2019 based on the National Youth Tobacco Survey. According to the CDC though, since surveys were administered online instead of on school campuses during the pandemic, the results cannot be compared to prior years.
Juul rocketed to the top of the U.S. vaping market about five years ago with the popularity of flavors like mango, mint and crème brûlée. But the startup's rise was fueled by use among teenagers, some of whom became hooked on Juul's high-nicotine pods.
Parents, school administrators and politicians have largely blamed the company for a surge in underage vaping.
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement that Juul "knew how addictive and dangerous its products were and actively tried to cover up that medical truth."
In September, Juul agreed to pay nearly $440 million over a period of six to 10 years to settle a two-year investigation by 33 states into the marketing of its high-nicotine vaping products to young people. That settlement amounted to about 25% of Juul's U.S. sales of $1.9 billion in 2021.
Three months later, the company said it had secured an equity investment to settle thousands of lawsuits over its e-cigarettes brought by individuals and families of Juul users, school districts, city governments and Native American tribes.
The vaping company, which has laid off hundreds of employees, recently agreed to pay West Virginia $7.9 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the company violated the state's Consumer Credit and Protection Act by marketing to underage users, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced Monday. Last month, the company paid Chicago $23.8 million to settle a lawsuit.
Minnesota's case against Juul went to trial last month with the state's Attorney General Keith Ellison asserting that the company "baited, deceived and addicted a whole new generation of kids" as youth cigarette smoking rates fell.
Democratic attorneys general urge appeals court to keep abortion pill available - Jennifer Shutt, States Newsroom via Source New Mexico
Democratic attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia weighed in with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday supporting access to the abortion medication mifepristone.
“The availability of mifepristone has been particularly critical in providing access to abortion in low-income, underserved, and rural communities where a non medication abortion procedure (or ‘procedural abortion’) may be unavailable,” they wrote.
“And because medication abortion is the most common method used to terminate pregnancy during the first trimester, curtailing access to this method will result in more abortions taking place later in pregnancy, further increasing costs and medical risks.”
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, will decide whether a federal judge in Texas correctly ruled last week when he overturned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 approval of the abortion medication mifepristone.
The U.S. Justice Department has appealed the Texas judge’s ruling from that federal district court to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and asked the court to place that ruling on hold while the appeals process plays out. The case is likely to end at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Democratic attorneys general who filed the brief Tuesday represent Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
They argued in their 25-page brief that the states “have a strong interest in safeguarding their sovereign decision to protect their residents’ ability to obtain abortions in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs opinion last June overturned the constitutional right to an abortion that stood for nearly half a century following the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 and the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision in 1992.
The Democratic attorneys general wrote in their brief the Texas judge’s ruling “could eviscerate the sovereign decisions of many amici States by disrupting access to mifepristone across the country, including in States where abortion is lawful.”
Republican attorneys general are likely to request and be granted the ability to weigh in on the appeal as well.
Twenty-three attorneys general from GOP-led states filed briefs in the abortion pill case when it was before U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk.
Democratic attorneys general from 21 states filed a brief in the case when it was before the federal district court judge. That brief didn’t include Arizona or Vermont, both of which signed on to Tuesday’s brief before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Vermont’s governor is a Republican who backs abortion rights and its Attorney General Charity Clark is a Democrat.
Democratic members of Congress filed their own brief with the court of appeals Tuesday, urging it to grant “emergency relief from” the Texas judge’s ruling.
The 240 lawmakers wrote they have a “special interest in both upholding the Constitution’s separation of powers — among other things, by ensuring that federal administrative agencies are able to faithfully exercise the authorities Congress delegated to them by statute without undue judicial interference — and protecting the physical health and safety of their constituents.”
The 50 U.S. senators and 190 U.S. House members wrote the Texas ruling “threatens the Congressionally mandated drug approval process, and poses a serious health risk to pregnant individuals by making abortion more difficult to access.” The only Democratic senator who did not sign the brief was West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin III.
GOP-led states want to be heard in Washington case
In a separate federal court case on access to mifepristone, seven Republican attorneys general on Tuesday sought to intervene in the case within the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
Judge Thomas Rice, in that case, ruled Friday shortly after the Texas ruling emerged that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration couldn’t change “the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone” in the 17 states and District of Columbia, which had filed the lawsuit.
In that case, attorneys general from the GOP-led states of Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah on Tuesday asked the judge to speed up their request to intervene in that case.
“Plaintiff States like Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon border several of Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and differing safeguards for mifepristone in these States directly affect Plaintiffs-Intervenors and their residents,” they wrote.
“These concerns are particularly salient since mifepristone may otherwise not be approved for marketing as of April 15, 2023,” under the Texas federal judge’s order, they said.
Separately in the Eastern District of Washington case, the U.S. Justice Department has asked the judge to clarify his Friday ruling, writing it “appears to be in significant tension” with the Texas ruling that is on appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Navajo Nation to receive federal aid for severe flood damage - Associated Press
The Navajo Nation is set receive federal emergency aid to help repair damage caused by severe flooding during a series of storms earlier this year.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday granted a disaster declaration for the largest Native American reservation in the U.S., which extends across Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. Biden said storms on Jan. 14-17 had affected many Navajo communities.
The funds will help with emergency repairs and may also be used for other mitigation efforts.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency will coordinate the recovery operations in the affected areas, according to a statement from the White House.
US floats options to reduce water pulled from Colorado River - By Ken Ritter And Suman Naishadham Associated Press
The Biden administration released an environmental analysis Tuesday that outlined two ways that seven Western states and tribes reliant on the overtapped Colorado River could cut their use, but declined to publicly take a side on the best option.
One option would be more beneficial to California and some tribes along the river that have high-priority rights to the river's water. The second option is likely to be more favorable to Nevada and Arizona, who share the river's Lower Basin with California and say it's time for an approach that more fairly spreads the pain of cuts. That approach would force cuts on a proportional basis, when water levels at key reservoirs along the river dip below a certain point.
The Interior Department defended its authority to make sure basic needs such as drinking water and hydropower generated from the river are met — even if it means setting aside the priority system.
"At the end of the day, the Interior secretary has the authority and the responsibility to operate the system," Interior Deputy Secretary Tommy Beaudreau told The Associated Press. He said those duties give the federal government the ability to make some decisions that defy the priority system.
The alternatives explore how the federal government could deal with water shortages at Lake Powell and Lake Mead through 2026. Lake Powell, located in Arizona, and Lake Mead, which sits behind Hoover Dam in Nevada, are the largest built reservoirs in the U.S. and serve as barometers of the river's health. The federal government typically announces in August how much water is available for the coming year.
The 1,450-mile (2,334-kilometer) powerhouse of the West serves 40 million people across seven states, which span tribal land, and Mexico. It also generates hydroelectric power for regional markets and irrigates nearly 6 million acres (2,428 hectares) of farmland.
A multidecade drought in the West intensified by climate change, rising demand and overuse has sent water levels at key reservoirs along the river to unprecedented lows. That's forced the federal government to cut some water allocations, and to offer up billions of dollars to pay farmers and cities to cut back.
Officials expect some relief this year from a series of powerful storms that blanketed California and the Western Rocky Mountains, the main source of the Colorado River's water. But Beaudreau said states, Native American tribes and other water users recognized that it would be in no one's interest to stall talks because of the winter's healthy snowpack.
"The snow is great. It's a godsend. But we're in the midst of a 23-year drought," Beaudreau said.
Last year the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation called for the states to figure out how to cut their collective use of the river's water by about 2 to 4 million acre feet — or roughly 15% to 30% of their annual use — but an agreement has since been elusive.
An acre-foot of water is roughly enough to serve 2 to 3 U.S. households annually.
In January, six of the seven U.S. states that rely on river — Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado — outlined how they would conserve significantly more water, but California disagreed and released its own ideas a day later.
The proposal released Tuesday builds on some of those ideas and rejects others, including a call by the six-state coalition to account for water loss from evaporation and leaky infrastructure as the river travels to states, cities and farms. One of the options would achieve similar cuts but through different means. Both largely focus on cuts to the Lower Basin users — California, Arizona and Nevada.
The lengthy environmental analysis released by the Biden administration explores two options for cuts, as well as a third that takes no action. States, tribes and other water users now have until May 30 to comment before federal officials announce their formal decision.
The two plans outlined by federal officials Tuesday would achieve at least 2 million acre-feet of cuts in 2024, on top of existing cuts that states and other users previously agreed to.
Among the main differences between the two plans from the Interior is whether states in the river's Lower Basin should have their water supplies cut on a proportional basis if water levels at Lake Mead fall below a certain level.
The other plan allocates cuts based on the priority system — in which water users in the West with more senior rights, like California — face fewer cuts.
The Department of Interior is not promoting one option over the other.
"Some of the commentary has depicted an us-versus-them dynamic in the basin," Beaudreau said. "I don't see that at all."
Arizona and California are looking at how to develop "a true seven-state consensus in the coming months," said JB Hamby, who chairs the Colorado River Board of California.
Hamby is also a board member of the Imperial Irrigation District, a vast farming region in California's southeastern corner that holds rights to the largest share of the river's water. The district said Tuesday it was concerned by any plan "that involves 'equal cuts' among water users."
The Quechan tribe along the Arizona-California border also opposes plans that throw out the priority system.
"We've got senior water rights and last we checked, we still live in a priority-based system," said Jay Weiner, the tribe's attorney.
Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, said it's imperative that the states reach an agreement that avoids legal action.
"Once litigation occurs, it's going to be very difficult to negotiate something moving forward. Litigation that might take 10 or 15 or 20 years is going to be occurring while the system and the lake behind us is going to crash," he said.
Reclamation also didn't say how Mexico might contribute to the savings, but that discussions are ongoing. The country is entitled to 1.5 million acre feet of water each year under a treaty reached with the U.S. in 1944. In recent years, Mexico has participated in water savings plans with the U.S. amid worsening drought in both countries.
New Mexico marks 1st child death of the state's flu season - Associated Press
New Mexico health officials are reporting the first pediatric death during the state's current flu season.
The state Department of Health announced Tuesday that a 2-year-old Otero County girl died from a flu-related illness.
There have been over 230 pneumonia and flu-related deaths in New Mexico since last fall.
Officials are reminding the public that while there has been a drop in recent weeks in cases of flu, COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses, they can still lead to hospitalizations and deaths year-round.
They also urge people 6 months and older to get vaccinated for the flu in the summer or fall every year.
People can also maintain safe practices like washing their hands or their children's hands frequently, covering coughs and sneezes with a tissue or sleeve and maintaining a social distance.
Española man opts to plead guilty in stepdaughter's death - Associated Press
An Española man has pleaded guilty in the beating death of his 5-year-old stepdaughter.
Local media outlets report Malcolm Torres entered a guilty plea to second-degree murder Monday in the killing of Renezmae Calzada.
In a statement from U.S. Attorney Alexander M.M. Uballez, 29-year-old Torres was home in September 2019 with the girl and his 18-month-old son and was heavily intoxicated.
Her mother reported her missing. The girl's body was found three days later on Santa Clara Pueblo in the Rio Grande, a mile from the Española yard where she was last seen.
Torres faces a minimum of 30 years and up to life in prison, according to his plea agreement filed in federal court.
He initially rejected a plea agreement from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque.
A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled.