AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The plaintiff appealed a district court order that denied his motion to reopen a final judgment entered against him. The original case was closed with a final judgment in 2016, which the plaintiff later sought to reopen, alleging issues including a moot motion, unaddressed claims for damages, and perjury by a witness. The plaintiff faced various hardships, including lack of access to resources due to COVID-19, health issues, and alleged destruction of evidence by the defendants, which he claimed affected his ability to present his case (paras 1, 4-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, May 5, 2020: Denied motion to reopen a final judgment entered on December 29, 2016.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the original case was improperly closed on the basis of a moot motion, that his claim for damages was not heard, and that perjury occurred. He also cited hardships including COVID-19, health issues, and destruction of evidence by the defendants as reasons for his inability to access resources and properly present his case (paras 1, 4-5).
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to reopen the final judgment entered in 2016.
• Whether the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was filed within a reasonable time.

Disposition

• The district court’s order denying reconsideration of its judgment entered in December of 2016 is affirmed.
• Plaintiff’s pending motion to expedite this appeal is denied as moot (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge J. MILES HANISEE and concurred by Judges MEGAN P. DUFFY and JANE B. YOHALEM, found that the plaintiff did not appeal the 2016 judgment and has not offered a basis upon which the Court could reverse the district court’s 2020 order. The plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance did not provide sufficient facts or legal basis to challenge the district court's decision. The Court also noted that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was filed more than two years after the judgment, which did not meet the timeliness requirement under Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA. Despite sympathizing with the plaintiff's situation, the Court was constrained by procedural rules and the lack of a substantive basis to reverse the lower court's decision (paras 6-7).