March 12, 2019- Bryce Franklin v. Timothy Hatch, No. A-1-CA-37281

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 BRYCE FRANKLIN,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37281
5 TIMOTHY HATCH, MATTHEW
6 MONTOYA, and TIMOTHY
7 HERNANDEZ,
8 	Defendants-Appellees.
9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF UNION COUNTY
10 Emilio J. Chavez, District Judge
11 	Bryce Franklin
12 	Santa Fe, NM
13 	Pro Se Appellant
14 YLAW, P.C.
15 	Sean E. Garrett
16 Albuquerque, NM
17 for Appellees
18
19 VANZI, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
20 	{I} 	Plaintiff, a self-represented prisoner, appeals from an order granting summary
21 	judgment on Plaintiffs civil claims. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm.
22 Plaintiff has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/12/2019 11:04 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 {2} 	Plaintiff continues to claim that he was denied due process by his disciplinary
2 proceedings. [MIO 3] The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
3 Defendants. [RP 224] "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine
A 	issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
5 Bank of N.Y. 	Mellon v. 	Lopes, 2014-NMCA-097, 1 6, 336 P.3d -443 	(internal
6 quotation marks and citation omitted).
7 	{3} 	Defendants presented an affidavit and documents that showed that Defendants
8 complied with the procedural protections given to inmates during the disciplinary
9 process, including notice, a hearing, the right to be present, and the taking of
10 evidence. [RP 141-59] Under such circumstances, .this Court has ruled that due
11 	process has been afforded. Griffin v. Thomas, 2004-NMCA-088, 1151-52, 136 N.M.
12 	129, 95 P.3d 1044. To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting that Defendants failed to
13 	establish a prima facie showing that they were entitled to summary judgment [MIO
14 4], ourreviewoftherecords indicates otherwise. [RP 141-59] Finally, we believe that
15 	Defendants were entitled to summary judgment even if, arguendo, we applied a
16 heightened due process review under our state constitution.
17 ISSUE 2:
18 	{4} 	Plaintiff continues to claim that the district court erred by failing to rule on
19 various motions before granting summary judgment. [MIO 15] These motions
2

1 apparently requested further discovery and a motion to amend the complaint. [DS 3]
2 Defendant has not established that these motions would have created a sufficient
3 material factual dispute to avoid summary judgment. See Morris v. Merchant, 1967-
4 NMSC-026, ,-r 24, 77 N.M. 411, 423 P .2d 606 ("The function of an appellate court is
5 to correct an erroneous result, and it will not correct errors which, even if corrected,
6 will not change the result."). Instead, we construe Plaintiffs motions as a bare
7 assertion that material factual disputes could develop. A party opposing summary
8 judgment "may not simply argue that [evidentiary] facts [requiring a trial on the
9 merits] might exist, nor may [the party] rest upon the allegations of the complaint."
10 Dow v. Chi/iii Coop. Ass 'n, 1986-NMSC-084, ,-r 13, 105 N.M. 52, 728 P.2d 462.
11 	{5} 	For the reasons discussed above, we affirm.
12 	{6} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 	WE CONCUR:
:~ {ltitiJi~
18 	~tdz.:19 JEN 	~ ATTREP, Judge
3