This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A state inmate, acting pro se, sought to compel a contractor overseeing the housing of state prisoners and a facility records coordinator to comply with the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) policy. The inmate's requests to review records believed to be in his inmate file were denied by the defendants (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court: Denied the inmate's verified petition for an alternative writ of mandamus, allowing the inmate to file a complaint instead (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the defendants had a nondiscretionary duty to comply with IPRA and provide inmates with access to a classification officer as per NMCD policy (paras 2, 4).
- Defendants: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus by finding that the requested acts involved discretionary duties (para 3).
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus (para 7).
Reasons
Per Attrep, Chief Judge (Bogardus and Medina JJ. concurring): The court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the petition. The district court correctly identified that the plaintiff's request involved both discretionary and nondiscretionary duties, and mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts. The plaintiff did not challenge the district court's ruling on the discretionary nature of the duties, nor did he argue that the court abused its discretion by denying a petition that sought enforcement of both types of duties. Therefore, the denial of the petition was not an abuse of discretion (paras 3-6).