Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Further Relief
Summary
AI-generated summaryThe Yazzie and Martinez plaintiffs jointly ask the court to order New Mexico and the Public Education Department (PED) to rewrite the final Comprehensive Remedial Action Plan with plaintiffs and subject-matter experts.
Page 1 · source excerpt
The Yazzie and Martinez Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) hereby jointly move this Court for an order compelling the State of New Mexico, NMPED, and the NMPED Secretary (collectively, “Defendants”) to rewrite the final Comprehensive Remedial Action Plan (“the Plan”), in conjunction with Plaintiffs and subject matter experts.Open page 1
The plaintiffs argue that PED’s final submission does not provide the detail they say is needed for effective planning, including measurable steps, costs, guidance for school districts, and meaningful tribal consultation. These are allegations in the motion, not findings made in this document.
Page 2 · source excerpt
In short, the PED’s submission is not a plan but merely a list of aspirational goals and ongoing work initiatives; it lacks objective goals and measurable steps; it lacks direction and guidance for school districts; it does not provide costs or include budgetary needs; it lacks meaningful tribal consultationOpen page 2
Key points
The motion states that the State does not oppose the request, while PED opposes it.
Page 1 · source excerpt
Defendant State of New Mexico, represented by the Attorney General of New Mexico, does not oppose Plaintiff’s Joint Motion. Defendant PED, represented by private counsel, opposes this motion.
Open page 1The plaintiffs describe the court’s May 2025 order as having found the State and PED noncompliant with earlier orders. This is the motion’s account of that order.
Page 3 · source excerpt
On May 20, 2025, the Court ruled that Defendants State of New Mexico and PED were noncompliant with this Court’s 2018 Decision and Order and 2019 Final Judgment and Order
Open page 3The plaintiffs say the final plan was not substantially changed after objections to its draft. They also cite criticism from a consultant who assisted in preparing the draft.
Page 5 · source excerpt
Despite ample objections and complaints to the Draft Plan by stakeholders, at large, the PED made little to no substantive changes to the final PED Plan, which it then submitted to the Court on November 3, 2025.
Open page 5Page 5 · source excerpt
Many of these items, while well-intentioned, are vague and rely on jargon that does not allow for expressed, measurable impact.
Open page 5The plaintiffs request a plan with specific actions, resource analysis, a five-to-seven-year timeline, responsible entities, and measurable outcomes. They also seek expert and stakeholder input, tribal consultation, and quarterly public reporting.
Page 12 · source excerpt
The Court should now order Defendants to develop a comprehensive remedial action plan that includes: 1. Specific actions required to remedy each constitutional violation; 2. An analysis of the resources, in addition to current funding, necessary to complete those actions; 3. A five-to-seven-year implementation timeline with annual and quarterly benchmarks;
Open page 12Page 17 · source excerpt
PED shall submit quarterly reports that include: 1. Progress toward each quarterly benchmark identified in the remedial plan.
Open page 17The plaintiffs ask the court to retain jurisdiction while the plan is developed and implemented, and to approve the plan before implementation.
Page 17 · source excerpt
Upon submission of the revised comprehensive remedial plan, PED shall seek Court approval before implementation.
Open page 17Page 18 · source excerpt
The Court shall retain jurisdiction until PED fulfills its obligations to the court by drafting developing and implementing a five-to-seven-year plan
Open page 18
Questions to follow
- How will the court assess whether PED’s submission meets the requirements of the May 2025 order?
- What role, if any, will plaintiffs, subject-matter experts, school districts, and tribal representatives have in any revised planning process?
- What funding information and progress measures would be included in a revised plan?
Generated Oct 21, 2026 · Citations refer to the saved original.
Original source: New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty
Help keep this archive accurate
Found an error or missing context? Send a private report to the review inbox. Reports do not automatically change or remove public content.
Commentary
AI-generated analysisIf the court granted the requested relief, the proposed timeline, benchmarks, and reporting could create a recurring structure for tracking progress. The motion proposes these requirements; this document does not show whether the court adopted them.
Page 18 · source excerpt
Open page 18Page 18 · source excerpt
Open page 18The requested cost analysis and public posting could make funding assumptions and estimates more visible to the parties and public, if ordered. The motion presents this as requested relief, not as an existing requirement established here.
Page 16 · source excerpt
Open page 16