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 case involves a prisoner at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility whose First Amendment rights were allegedly violated by the prison's policy. The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus in favor of the prisoner without an evidentiary hearing (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, September 21, 2023: Granted a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing, finding the prison policy violated the prisoner's First Amendment rights (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• State of New Mexico and Ronald Martinez, Warden: Argued that the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing before issuing its order (para 3).
• Bryce Franklin: Filed a Non-Opposition to Remand, stating he is unopposed to the matter being remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by granting a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing (para 3).
• Whether the case should be remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing (paras 4-5).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico ordered the withdrawal of its February 26, 2024, order staying the district court's September 21, 2023, order and the enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus. The matter is remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing and further proceedings as may be warranted (paras 8-9).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Michael E. Vigil with Chief Justice David K. Thomson, Justices C. Shannon Bacon, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora concurring, decided to remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. This decision was based on the State's request for an evidentiary hearing, which was unopposed by the Appellee, and the Court's discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA. The Court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was warranted to enable the district court to make factual determinations (paras 3-7).