of process). Here, plaintiff is alleging malicious use of process, which “is the employment of process for its ostensible purpose, but without reasonable or probable cause,” and is merely a type of malicious prosecution. Westland, 117 N.M. at 293, 871 P.2d at 389. Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that plaintiff has stated a cause of action for abuse of process, we conclude it was properly dismissed. As noted in our discussion of plaintiffs First Amendment claims, we agree with the district court that plaintiff has “presented no evidence of retaliatory motive on the part of either Lasater or Izatt.” Appellant’s append. 1 at 227. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot satisfy all of the elements of an abuse of process claim under New Mexico law. Westland, 117 N.M. at 293, 871 P.2d at 389 (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth
holding that the timing of a discharge may indicate the existence of an unlawful motive holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements holding that the existence of probable cause vitiated the need for an inquiry into an underlying motive for the arrest holding that one of the essential elements of an abuse of process claim is the existence of an ulterior motive