This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a petition against the New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) and its Director, alleging that NMCD failed to maintain accurate records and detain inmates according to accurate documentation. The Plaintiff argued that this failure constituted a breach of legal obligations by NMCD. (paras 2-3)
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Denied the Plaintiff's petition for an injunction.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the NMCD has a legal obligation to maintain accurate records and detain inmates according to accurate documentation. The Plaintiff contended that the district court erred in denying the petition for an injunction. (paras 2-3)
- Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's petition for an injunction.
- Whether the NMCD has a ministerial duty to maintain accurate records and detain inmates according to accurate documentation.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Plaintiff's petition for an injunction. (para 7)
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Duffy and Wray JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the district court properly construed the Plaintiff's petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court concluded that the petition was insufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus because it failed to identify any legal authority establishing that NMCD had a ministerial duty to act. The Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition did not adequately preserve the issue for review, as it failed to demonstrate that NMCD policies created a ministerial duty. Additionally, the Plaintiff did not respond to the proposed conclusion that the legal authority cited in the petition did not establish a ministerial duty. The Court also noted that the Plaintiff's attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal was not permissible. (paras 3-6)