VIGIL V. BONANZA CREEK RANCH
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on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
DAVID VIGIL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BONANZA CREEK RANCH,
Defendant-Appellee.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, Sarah
M. Singleton, District Judge
David Vigil, Santa Fe, NM, Pro se
Appellant
The Simons Firm, LLP, Thomas A. Simons
IV, Frieda Simons Burnes, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge. WE CONCUR:
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
AUTHOR: JAMES J. WECHSLER
{1} Plaintiff, a self-represented
litigant, seeks to appeal from a final judgment in the underlying proceedings,
as well as one or more orders of the New Mexico Supreme Court. We previously
issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, in which we proposed to
dismiss. Plaintiff has filed both a “Response to order denying motion to
reconsider and addendum to docketing statement,” and a letter that is in the
nature of a memorandum in opposition. We note that although it is not entirely
clear whether both of these documents were duly served, Defendant subsequently
filed a memorandum in support of the proposed summary disposition. After due
consideration, we dismiss the appeal.
{2} To summarize our
previous analysis, notice of appeal was not timely filed with respect to the
final judgment, and this Court lacks authority to review actions of the New
Mexico Supreme Court. In light of these considerations, we proposed to dismiss.
{3} In the first of his
responsive filings, Plaintiff does not directly address our notice of proposed
summary disposition. Instead, Plaintiff appears to take issue with the denial
of a motion to reconsider. The only such order within the record before us is
an order of the New Mexico Supreme Court. [RP 474] As previously stated, we
lack authority to review this determination.
See State v. Williams,
1978-NMCA-065, ¶ 2,
91 N.M. 795,
581 P.2d 1290 (observing that “[t]his Court
has no authority to review actions of the Supreme Court”). We therefore decline
to consider the matter further.
{3} In the second of
his responsive filings, we understand Plaintiff to suggest that the pendency of
his petition for writ of mandamus and a recusal request with the New Mexico
Supreme Court may have tolled the deadline for filing notice of appeal with
this Court. However, we are aware of no authority, and Plaintiff has cited
none, to support this suggestion. See generally In re Adoption of Doe,
1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (stating that when a party
cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume that no such authority
exists). We therefore adhere to our prior assessment of these matters.
{4} In closing, we
acknowledge Plaintiff’s continuing belief that the district court has erred.
However, this does not alter or diminish the jurisdictional limitations
implicated in this case.
{5} Accordingly, for
the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we
remain unpersuaded that this matter is properly before us. The appeal is
therefore summarily dismissed.