Judge orders other plaintiffs to file in Rio Rancho ordinance case, sets deadline

ALBUQUERQUE — A judge criticized a Rio Rancho resident for not following civil procedure in her lawsuit alleging the city is enforcing its ordinances illegally but stopped short of ruling on the merits of the case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerry Ritter issued an opinion and order Oct. 10 in the case filed in federal court by Rio Rancho resident Corrine Rios, a former New Mexico House of Representatives candidate who seeks to prevent the city from enforcing five ordinances.

Ritter struck down several of Rios’ motions and notices in the case, filed July 3, stating that she repeatedly violated a court rule that requires all plaintiffs to sign onto litigation if the person who brings the case is not an attorney. Rios, who does not practice law, originally brought 14 other plaintiffs on to her case, but four later withdrew.

Excluding Rios, Ritter has ordered the remaining plaintiffs to either enter the case, retain an attorney to do it for them, or show cause why they are unable to do so within 21 days. If not, Ritter added, Presiding District Judge Sarah Davenport would dismiss their claims without prejudice. The legal maneuver would end the remaining plaintiffs’ role in the lawsuit but allow them to refile in the same court.

In an interview, Rios said she will comply with Ritter’s order.

“They didn’t sign (most court filings) — and I didn’t know that they had to do that; but now we do,” she said.

Rios added that several plaintiffs, without stating which ones or how many, have already sent in their notice of appearance in the case.

“We’re going forward with it,” she said. “We’re all in this together.”

Rios said even if the other plaintiffs ultimately do not sign on to the lawsuit, she will continue to pursue it herself.

She noted that the judge has not ruled on the crux of her case.

Similar to her original complaint filed in state court June 20, Rios asserts the city’s failure to identify a sponsor to the ordinances is a violation of her constitutional rights to a representative government and procedural due process.

The measures challenged by Rios include Ordinance 22 (regulations for short-term rentals); Ordinance 18 (setting the mayor’s and council members’ salaries); Ordinance 05 (updating the lodger’s tax); Ordinance 07 (amending water and wastewater rules and rates) and Ordinance 8 (raising the municipal judge’s salary).

All ordinances have gone into effect, though the new salary structures won’t be implemented until new officials are elected in March 2026.

After a Sandoval County judge failed to rule on her state case, Rios filed a new complaint July 3 in federal court, citing not only the court’s inaction, but the need to “conserve judicial resources” and avoid numerous lawsuits.

In her latest complaint, Rios asks the court to overturn the ordinances, order the city to refund the money collected by them, and require Rio Rancho to adopt new procedures requiring all future ordinances to have a sponsor.

The city responded by asking for the case to be dismissed, claiming that Rios incorrectly interpreted the Governing Body’s rules of procedures and that the ordinances are not invalid due to alleged procedural errors. The city also said that Rios’ constitutional rights were not violated and that the case should not be heard in federal court due to a federal law which they believe bars U.S. district courts from suspending taxes collected under state law.

City attorneys also asked a judge for Rios to refund Rio Rancho’s court costs because she is not licensed to practice law, engaged in alleged “forum shopping” for a court case when she did not receive the outcome she wanted and allegedly cited fake case law.

Deputy City Manager Peter Wells wrote in an email that the litigation is still pending and the city has no comment beyond what it has filed in court.