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-Appellant, Bryce Franklin, along with other plaintiffs, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Corrections, Keefe Corporation, New Mexico Corrections Department, Correction Industries, and the Director of Correction Industries. The petition was denied by the district court.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Denied Appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law available to him due to the nature of the parties and cause of action, making civil suit against the Appellees unfeasible. Asserted that claims under the Tort Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were unavailable to him, and that mandamus was warranted to compel prospective compliance with a policy (paras 2, 3).
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus on the grounds that there are other adequate remedies available in the ordinary course of law.
• Whether the Plaintiff-Appellant demonstrated that the circumstances of the case were such that a writ of mandamus was warranted.
• Whether the duty alleged by the Plaintiff-Appellant was a ministerial duty and if the policy in question had the "force of law" such that mandamus would be appropriate.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Plaintiff-Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus.

Reasons

• Per Ives, J. (Attrep, C.J., and Yohalem, J., concurring): The Court found that the Plaintiff-Appellant failed to demonstrate the absence of other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies at law, which is a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Court noted that the Plaintiff-Appellant identified two causes of action he believed were unavailable to him but did not negate the existence of other adequate legal remedies. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Plaintiff-Appellant did not adequately respond to the suggestion that the nature of the injury could be remedied by an award of damages and that delays associated with other proceedings would not render moot the improper pricing practices alleged. The Court also highlighted that the Plaintiff-Appellant did not provide authority to support his argument that mandamus was the only vehicle through which to enforce compliance with a legal duty. Finally, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff-Appellant's argument regarding the ministerial duty to perform an act set forth in a policy with the full force of law was insufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus (paras 1-5).