Litteral v. GEO Group ( 2013 )

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
Appeals and does not include the filing date.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 JAMES LITTERAL,
3 Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. NO. 32,718
5 GEO GROUP, INC., CORRECTIONAL
6 MEDICAL SERVICES, BLACKSTONE GROUP
7 LP, and MEDICAL STAFF REAL NAMES
8 UNKNOWN, SECURITY STAFF REAL NAMES
9 UNKNOWN,
10 Defendants-Appellees.
11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUADALUPE COUNTY
12 Matthew J. Sandoval, District Judge
13 James Litteral
14 Grants, NM
15 Pro Se Appellant
16 Yenson, Allen & Wosick PC
17 April D. White
18 Albuquerque, NM
19 for Appellee GEO Group, Inc.
1 Chapman and Charlebois
2 Nicole M. Charlebois
3 Albuquerque, NM
4 for Appellee Correction Medical Services
5 Orlando C. Martinez
6 Albuquerque, NM
7 for Appellee Correction Medical Services
8 MEMORANDUM OPINION
9 WECHSLER, Judge.
10 Appellant James Litteral (Plaintiff) appeals [RP 210, 212] pro se from the
11 district court’s rulings that dismiss his claims against Defendants GEO Group (GEO),
12 Blackstone Group LP (Blackstone), and Correctional Medical Services (CMS). [RP
13 185, 183, 208] Our notice proposed to dismiss for lack of a final order, and Plaintiff
14 filed a memorandum in opposition. We are not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments
15 and therefore dismiss for lack of a final order.
16 As detailed in our notice, the district court entered orders on August 7, 2012
17 dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Blackstone and GEO. [RP 185, 183]
18 Subsequently, Plaintiff filed two “objections” on August 16, 2012 [RP 195, 197, 199,
19 202], he asked the district court to “correct the judge’s errors” [RP 196] and “reverse”
2
1 the orders of dismissal. [RP 198 MIO 2] We view these motions to be effectively
2 motions for reconsideration. See NMSA 1978, 39-1-1 (1917). Prior to the district
3 court ruling on these outstanding objections, Plaintiff prematurely filed a November
4 13, 2012 notice of appeal. [RP 210] See Grygorwicz v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶
5 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (explaining that, “if a party makes a post-judgment
6 motion directed at the final judgment pursuant to Section 39-1-1 the time for filing an
7 appeal does not begin to run until the district court enters an express disposition on
8 that motion”). Because outstanding matters remain to be ruled upon, we dismiss for
9 lack of a final orders. We additionally recognize that Plaintiff appeals also from the
10 district court’s October 22, 2012 order granting CMS’ motion for joinder and
11 dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against CMS. [RP 208] Although Plaintiff did not file
12 a post-judgment motion directed against this order, given that CMS was allowed to
13 join in GEO’s motion for summary judgment [RP 208], which is subject to
14 reconsideration, the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against CMS
15 is also non-final.
16 We thus disagree with Plaintiff’s argument that Section 39-1-1 has been voided
17 by some of the rules of civil procedure. [MIO 2] Instead, the rules supersede only the
18 portion of Section 39-1-1 providing that many post-judgment motions are deemed
19 automatically denied if not granted within thirty days of filing. See Albuquerque
3
1 Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2007-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 11-16, 142 N.M. 527, 168
2 P.3d 99. As a consequence, there is no longer an automatic denial of post-judgment
3 motions, such that the time for filing notices of appeal runs from the entry of an order
4 expressly disposing of the post-judgment motions. Id. (discussing that the rules of
5 civil procedure regarding post-judgment motions were amended in 2006 and that
6 because there no longer is an automatic denial of post-judgment motions, the time for
7 filing notices of appeal runs from the entry of an orders expressly disposing of the
8 motion); see also Rule 12-201(D) NMRA (providing that if a party timely files a
9 motion pursuant to Section 39-1-1, the time for filing a notice of appeal begins to run
10 from entry of an order disposing of the motion).
11 We lastly acknowledge Plaintiff’s request that we consider his post-judgment
12 “objections” as harmless and proceed to consider the merits of his appeal, especially
13 in light of his view that prisoners’ access to legal resources is limited. [MIO 2] While
14 Plaintiff is frustrated by any further delay in resolution of his claims, the effect of
15 Plaintiff’s objections below is that there is a lack of a final order for purposes of
16 providing this Court jurisdiction over his appeal. See Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare,
17 LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 (holding that because
18 resolution of the post-judgment motion could alter, amend, or moot the order that is
19 challenged, the order is not final and the appeal is premature). We note, however, that
4
1 upon entry of a final order ruling on Defendant’s post-judgment objections, Plaintiff
2 may elect, if desired, to file another notice of appeal.
3 For the reasons stated herein in and in our notice, we dismiss for lack of a final
4 order.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 _______________________________
7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
8 WE CONCUR:
9 ______________________________
10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
11 ______________________________
5
1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
6