Ordinarily I would consider the actions of a judge as a civil plaintiff to be merely collateral to the matter of judicial competence. In this case that is not the situation. In this instance the cases in which Judge Griffin is a plaintiff are the kind that are routinely heard by NM magistrate judges. In her time in office she seems to have done nothing except collect a paycheck. You think I jest? Read on and in a few paragraphs you will understand why the New Mexico Supreme Court has scarcely an excuse to allow this nominal judge to remain on the bench.

Let me back up a little to give this CF a little context. A couple of weeks ago Judge Griffin filed an Unlawful Detainer suit in Otero County Magistrate Court against a man that claims he has an agreement with Judge Griffin’s son to reside on a property owned by Susan Griffin. As a result of multiple recusals by local judges have caused the case to take a little longer to get to court than was acceptable to Judge Griffin, so a few days ago she filed what could best be described as vexatious litigation. In this case Judge Griffin filed a new Unlawful Detainer case against the same defendant, alleging the same material facts while the earlier case is still pending.

Not everything is the same. The plaintiff in this latest case amended the court form to seek the wrong remedy and demands a jury trial to get it. For reasons I will discuss this is is both funny and sad. Well it would be funny if this was a sitcom and Susan E. Griffin was merely an actress playing a judge on TV and not a real life magistrate judge hearing cases like this all the time.

In her Complaint Judge Griffin amends the court form to ask for a “3 Day Writ of Restitution” which is an apparent reference to an Owner-Resident (47-8-46 NMSA 1978) remedy rather than the forthwith removal via Writ of Execution provided for in the Unlawful Detainer statute (35-10-6 NMSA 1978). The poor woman seems senile.

Next Judge Susan Griffin amends the court form to demand a jury trial. Here is another little nugget – Right to a trial by jury does not exist in an action for forcible entry and detainer in the absence of statutory authority. Reece v. Montano, 1943-NMSC-054, 48 N.M. 1, 144 P.2d 461.

It would seem some sanctions should be in order for dogpiling case after case on the same set of circumstances. Does anyone know if Mrs. Griffin drinks?