FILED

3rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

Dona Ana County
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9/3/2019 2:11 PM
COUNTY OF DONA ANA DAVID S. BORUNDA
STATE OF NEW MEXICO CLERK OF THE COURT
Claudine Bernal

D-307-CV-2019-02526
JOHN DOE 166,
Martin, James T.
Plaintiff,

v.

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO, and

SAN MIGUEL PARISH, INC.,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FOR CAUSING SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS,
FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS,
FOR THE SEXUAL ABUSE ITSELF, AND RELATED CLAIMS,
INCLUDING REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, states as his complaint:

1. Defendant Catholic Diocese of El Paso (hereinafter “the Diocese” or “CDEP”) is

a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in El Paso County, Texas, and

which at all times material to this Complaint operated facilities in southern and western

New Mexico, including Dona Ana County, New Mexico.

2. San Miguel Parish, Inc. is an incorporated legal entity separate from the Diocese,

with its primary place of business located in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. San Miguel

Parish, Inc., is the successor in interest to San Miguel Parish (“the Parish”), where many

of the events relevant to this Complaint occurred.

3. Plaintiff currently resides in Dona Ana County, New Mexico.

1
4. Plaintiff was a victim of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by a priest of the

Diocese.

5. The priest who abused Plaintiff was Fr. Marcos Rizzo-Rico, known to Plaintiff as

“Fr. Marcos.” At the time he sexually abused Plaintiff, Fr. Marcos was the

pastor/administrator of San Miguel Parish.

6. At all times material to this Complaint, and according to the internal policies and

procedures of the Catholic Church and the Diocese, Fr. Marcos was an employee of the

Diocese and/or Parish acting within the course and scope of such employment, and

otherwise acted within an agency relationship with the Diocese and/or Parish.

7. Fr. Marcos succeeded Fr. Robert Villegas as pastor/administrator of San Miguel

Parish.

8. Plaintiff was an altar boy for Fr. Villegas, and subsequently for Fr. Marcos.

9. Plaintiff grew up in a physically abusive household, and was physically abused by

his step-father.

10. Fr. Marcos became aware of the fact that Plaintiff was being physically abused by

his step-father, and eventually told Plaintiff’s mother that she should allow Plaintiff to

live with Fr. Marcos – where Plaintiff would be “protected from abuse.”

11. Plaintiff’s mother sent him to live with Fr. Marcos when he was about ten years

old, hoping to protect him from the physical abuse that was being inflicted on him by his

stepfather.

12. Upon information and belief, Fr. Marcos’s house was owned by the Diocese

and/or the Parish, and as such was a premise of the Diocese and/or the Parish.

13. Fr. Marcos began sexually abusing Plaintiff as soon as Plaintiff moved into Fr.

2
Marcos’s house. Much of the sexual abuse occurred in Fr. Marcos’s house, and thus on

premises owned by the Diocese and/or the Parish.

14. Over the next two years, Fr. Marcos sexually abused Plaintiff on many occasions,

often up to three times per week. The sexual abuse by Fr. Marcos occurred from

approximately 1974 (when Plaintiff was about ten years old) until April 1976 (when

Plaintiff was twelve years old).

15. The abuse ended when Plaintiff left Fr. Marcos’s house and went to live with his

biological father.

16. After the sexual abuse from Fr. Marcos ended, Plaintiff actively suppressed the

memories of the abuse for many decades, doing his best not to think about the abuse or

address it in any way. He hoped to forget about it altogether, but he could not.

17. Until 2018, Plaintiff was too ashamed and afraid to seek professional guidance

regarding this dark chapter of his life, and as such was unable to realize or understand the

damage caused by the sexual abuse inflicted on him by Fr. Marcos. Plaintiff is now

obtaining professional help for the first time and realizing the nature of the abuse and the

delayed psychological reaction, and is only now realizing and connecting the harm

caused to him by the actions of Fr. Marcos, and of Defendants in sheltering and housing

Fr. Marcos such that he was able to have access to Plaintiff and sexually abuse him.

18. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff by Fr. Marcos caused Plaintiff harm.

19. Plaintiff has only recently (in the latter months of 2018) come to the beginnings of

an understanding of the nature of the abuse that he suffered, the superior knowledge of

Defendants of the existence of pedophilia and child sexual abuse in their organization,

and the fact that he sustained severe injury as a result of the childhood sexual abuse from

3
Fr. Marcos.

20. The Defendants knew or should have known of Fr. Marcos’s sexual abuse of

children, including Plaintiff, and did nothing to stop it or warn parishioners of its

likelihood, or that pedophiles were in their midst.

21. The Defendants knew or should have known that of the risk that some priests

would sexually abuse altar boys if those priests were not closely supervised and/or those

altar boys were not trained to defend themselves from sexual abuse, but the Defendants

took no steps to closely supervise their priests and/or to train altar boys to defend

themselves from sexual abuse.

22. According to the internal policies and procedures of the Catholic Church and the

Diocese, and according to common law in New Mexico, Defendants owed a duty to hire,

supervise and retain priests who would not molest and harm children, and Defendants

breached this duty.

23. Regardless of whether the Diocese and Parishes knew specific details about Fr.

Marcos’s crimes against children, or feigned ignorance of his involvement in the culture

of sexual abuse that dominated these decades, Defendants had a duty to keep the Church

premises safe for use by the Plaintiff.

24. The Defendants breached this duty.

25. The Defendants had a duty to protect altar boys like Plaintiff from sexual abuse

by parish priests like Fr. Marcos.

26. The Defendants breached this duty.

27. The Defendants had a duty to supervise its priests in a manner sufficient to

prevent those priests from sexually abusing children entrusted to them by virtue of their

4
status as priests.

28. The Defendants breached this duty.

29. The Defendants had a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect Plaintiff from

sexual abuse.

30. The Defendants breached this duty.

31. According to the internal policies and procedures of the Catholic Church and the

Diocese, the Diocese (through its Bishop) had and has the power to allow, disallow, and

control the service of any clergy within the geographical jurisdiction of the Diocese.

32. Plaintiff’s family trusted that Plaintiff would be safe from sexual predation while

in the care and custody of priests like Fr. Marcos.

33. Fr. Marcos was only allowed to bring Plaintiff into his home because of his status

and position of trust as a parish priest.

34. But for the fact that Fr. Marcos was a priest, Plaintiff’s family would never have

allowed Plaintiff to live with Fr. Marcos.

35. Fr. Marcos’s knowledge of the deference to priests ingrained in Catholic children

by their upbringing in the Church encouraged and facilitated his sexual abuse of those

Catholic children, including Plaintiff. Fr. Marcos knew that Catholic children, and

particularly altar boys, were trained to give unquestioning obedience to priests (rather

than to defend themselves from sexual abuse by priests), and exploited Plaintiff’s trained

obedience for his own sexual gratification. The scope of Fr. Marcos’s employment

allowed him unfettered access to children like Plaintiff, and performing priestly functions

as agent for the Diocese allowed unfettered access to these minors.

36. The Defendants caused the abuse of Plaintiff by, among other things, empowering

5
priests to abuse children, training altar boys like Plaintiff to obey their priests without

question, and adhering to policies and practices of secrecy to protect abusive priests and

the Defendants from scandal. Adherence to these policies and practices of secrecy took

precedence over warning parishioners of sexually abusive priests in their midst, which

would have promoted safety and accountability.

37. As a direct and proximate result of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of Fr.

Marcos, Plaintiff suffers and continues to suffer severe emotional and psychological

distress. Plaintiff now suffers from embarrassment, humiliation, damaged faith, loss of

sexual capacity and intimacy, loss of self-esteem, depression, anger issues, and other

damages. Plaintiff has only begun to consider the childhood source of some of his

emotional problems since 2018.

38. The harm and suffering of many victims, including Plaintiff, could have been at

least partially alleviated or ameliorated by earlier professional intervention, which the

Defendants’ policies of secrecy and non-disclosure of documents and information to the

public have prevented. As such, the Defendants have also exacerbated harms to Plaintiff

by maintaining certain policies and procedures and by maintaining a culture of secrecy

around the clergy abuse crisis.

39. Because Plaintiff must continually struggle with the reality of the abuse

perpetrated upon him while so many in the community refuse to believe that such abuse

could have occurred (without seeing the documents to prove it), a significant portion of

Plaintiff’s harm is caused by the Defendants’ policies of institutional secrecy and evasion

of transparency and public accountability. The public release of the personnel files of the

CDEP’s credibly accused clergy would serve to mitigate this ongoing harm to Plaintiff.

6
40. Because the true nature of Plaintiff’s injury is inextricably entangled with the

skepticism of the general public regarding the widespread nature of priest abuse in the

Diocese, and because the Defendants’ policies of institutional secrecy and evasion of

transparency promote that skepticism by preventing the disclosure of documents to the

general public, Plaintiff has not yet realized the true nature of his injury with the help of

professionals. Plaintiff cannot realize the true nature of his injury without Defendants’

full disclosure of documents establishing that cover-up of widespread abuse of children

by CDEP priests did in fact occur, and did in fact create a culture whereby Fr. Marcos

could rape him as a child with impunity.

41. Even after this full disclosure of documents to the public occurs, Plaintiff will not

be able to connect his abuse to the true nature of his injury without the assistance of

expert psychological counseling.

42. According to the internal policies and procedures of the Catholic Church and the

Diocese, one of Fr. Marcos’s duties as parish priest was to instruct and train Catholic

children as to their own duties, as well as to provide physical and spiritual guidance,

instruction, discipline, and education.

43. The facts described herein support legal claims for battery, premises liability, and

negligence taking many forms such as ‘failure to warn’ or ‘negligent hiring, training,

retention and supervision’.

44. In addition, vicarious liability exists under at least two theories, including the

aided-in-agency theory of vicarious liability.

45. Plaintiff suffered harm as a proximate result of the Defendants’ breaches of duties

set forth above.

7
46. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico law and jury

instructions for harms caused by Defendants, including punitive damages.

47. Priests are managers of parishes, and the Diocese and/or Parish is legally

responsible for punitive damages for the harms caused by its priests.

48. The Diocese has for many years knowingly maintained and continues to

knowingly maintain policies and practices of non-disclosure of the identity of clergy who

are accused of the sexual abuse of minors.

49. The Diocese has for many years knowingly maintained and continues to

knowingly maintain policies and practices of telling parishioners that priests are on

“sabbatical” when they are actually undergoing treatment for alleged sexual misconduct

with minors or adult parishioners.

50. The Diocese has for many years knowingly maintained and continues to

knowingly maintain policies and practices of non-disclosure of documents detailing and

demonstrating the methods by which it handles its internal investigations of clergy

accused of the sexual abuse of minors.

51. By failing for decades to inform parishioners, civil authorities, or the general

public of the child sexual abuse perpetrated by its clerics, the Diocese has knowingly

engaged in conduct injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of large numbers of the

public, particularly minors, but also to adults who were abused as children and then

‘locked it away’. This secretive conduct has placed large numbers of minors at the risk of

sexual abuse from unknown abusive clerics, and has caused the delays in triggers and

treatment for bottled-up, PTSD-like symptoms, and other problems.

52. The above-mentioned activities of the Diocese constitute a public nuisance under

8
New Mexico law.

53. The Diocese has knowingly created and maintained numerous policies and

practices injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of large numbers of the public,

particularly minors.

54. These policies and practices of non-disclosure, which were knowingly created and

are knowingly maintained by the Diocese, are injurious to the health, safety, and welfare

of large numbers of the public at all times and under all circumstances, and thus

constitute a nuisance per se.

55. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable abatement of ADSF policies and practices

allowing the non-disclosure and non-prosecution of clergy credibly accused of sexual

contact with minors.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendants in

an amount reasonable to compensate him for damages, including punitive damages, for

interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and abatement of Diocese policies

constituting public nuisance. Plaintiff also requests an Order from the Court requiring the

release of documents from Diocesan archives to the public, and such other and further

relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

HALL & MONAGLE, LLC

/s/ Levi A. Monagle 9/3/19

BRAD D. HALL
LEVI A. MONAGLE
320 Gold Ave SW #1218
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax