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 pro se from a district court's order that denied his motion to vacate and reinstate a previous order. Subsequent to this denial and before filing his notice of appeal, the Plaintiff submitted a request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the court had not yet ruled on at the time of appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, September 14, 2010: Order denying motion to vacate and reinstate.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued against the district court's order denying his motion to vacate and reinstate the order and filed a request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law subsequent to the order.
• Defendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final judgment due to the pending post-judgment motion filed by the Plaintiff.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of finality.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge, concurring): The Court determined that the Plaintiff's request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, filed after the district court's order and before his notice of appeal, functioned as a motion for reconsideration. Since the district court had not ruled on this post-judgment motion, the Court of Appeals found the appeal to be premature due to the absence of a final judgment. The Court noted that the district court retains jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff's post-judgment request and expressed understanding of the Plaintiff's frustration but explained that the filing of the post-judgment motion prevented the Court from addressing the merits of the appeal.