A-1-CA-38209 | Omnilex

Full text

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
RAUL A. CANO C.,	2
Plaintiff-Appellant,	3
v. 	No. A-1-CA-38209	4
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE RISK	5
MANAGEMENT,	6
Defendant-Appellee.	7
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY	8
Nancy J. Franchini, District Judge	9
Raul A. Cano C.	10
Albuquerque, NM	11
Pro Se Appellant	12
Esteban A. Aguilar, Jr., City Attorney	13
Kristin J. Dalton, Managing Assistant City Attorney	14
Albuquerque, NM	15
for Appellee	16
MEMORANDUM OPINION	17
VANZI, Judge.	18
{1} 	Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, appeals from the district court’s order	19
granting Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In this Court’s notice	20
of proposed disposition, we proposed summary affirmance and directed Plaintiff “to	21
explain to this Court how and why the district court committed reversible error by	22
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 4/20/2020 11:12 AM

2
pointing to specific errors in law with the proposed disposition.” [CN 5-6] Plaintiff	1
filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly considered.	2
Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.	3
{2} 	In his MIO, Plaintiff continues to argue that he has evidence police damaged	4
his property, injured him, threatened him in front of his family, and damaged his	5
parents’ property. [MIO 1] Plaintiff has not asserted any law or argument, and has	6
not otherwise persuaded us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous.	7
See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our	8
courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the	9
party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”);	10
State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating	11
that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and	12
specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments	13
does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated	14
in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Plaintiff	15
to our analysis therein.	16
{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and	17
herein, we affirm the district court’s order.	18
{4} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	19
______________________________	20
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	21

3
WE CONCUR:	1
______________________________	2
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge	3
______________________________	4
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge	5

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10)
11

13
14
15

16)

18)

19)

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Filed 4/20/2020 11:12 AM

RAUL A. CANO C.,
Plaintiff-A ppellant, Al. we Fe
ark Reynolds

M
v. No. A-1-CA-38209

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE RISK
MANAGEMENT,

Defendant- Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Nancy J. Franchini, District J udge

Raul A. Cano C.
Albuquerque, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Fsteban A. Aguilar, Jr., City Attomey
Kristin]. Dalton, Managing Assistant City Attomey
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANTZI, Judge.
1} Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, appeals from the district court’s order
granting Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In this Court’s notice
of proposed disposition, we proposed summary affinmance and directed Plaintiff “to
explain to this Court how and why the district court committed reversible exor by

2
pointing to specific errors in law with the proposed disposition.” [CN 5-6] Plaintiff 1
filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly considered. 2
Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 3
{2} In his MIO, Plaintiff continues to argue that he has evidence police damaged 4
his property, injured him, threatened him in front of his family, and damaged his 5
parents’ property. [MIO 1] Plaintiff has not asserted any law or argument, and has 6
not otherwise persuaded us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. 7
See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our 8
courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the 9
party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); 10
State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating 11
that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and 12
specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments 13
does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated 14
in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Plaintiff 15
to our analysis therein. 16
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and 17
herein, we affirm the district court’s order. 18
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 19
______________________________ 20
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 21

WE CONCUR:

ZEXNFER L.A , Judge

C@UELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

April 20, 2020- Raul A. Cano C. v. City of Albuquerque Risk Management, No. A-1-CA-38209

Full text

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude