This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 RAUL HERMINIO SANTILLANES, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. No. 31,525 4 GEO GROUP, INC., et al., 5 Defendants, 6 CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, 7 INC., 8 Defendant-Appellee. 9

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 10 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge 11 Solomon Brown 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Simone, Roberts & Weiss, P.A. 15 Meena H. Allen 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 182 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 2 Raul Santillanes (Plaintiff) appeals from the district court’s order filed on April 3 22, 2011 [RP 1241], and the order denying hi s motion for reconsideration filed on 4 July 5, 2011. [RP 1252] The notice of appeal was filed one day late on August 5, 5 2011, i.e., more than thirty days after the district court entered its July 5, 2011 order 6 denying Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion for reconsideration. [RP 1255] SeeRule 7 12-201(D) NMRA. This Court has filed tw o calendar notices proposing to dismiss 8 Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant Corr ectional Medical Services, Inc. (Defendant 9 CMS). In addition, Defendants Geo Group, Inc., Warden James Janecka, and Security 10 Warden Choate (the Geo Group Defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal to 11 the extent Plaintiff was seeking to appeal, in this appeal, the district court’s orders 12 granting their motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in 13 opposition to the first calendar notice (MIO ), and a memorandum in opposition to the 14 second calendar notice as well as a notice of errata with regard to it (2nd MIO). 15 Plaintiff has also responded to the Geo Group Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 16 Upon due consideration, we grant the Geo Group Defendants’ motion to 17 dismiss, and we dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant CMS. 18
DISCUSSION 193 The Geo Group Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The district court granted 1 the Geo Group Defendants partial summary judgment against Plaintiff on September 2 24, 2010. [RP 398] The district court granted the Geo Group Defendants summary 3 judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims against them on March 7, 2011. [RP 848] 4 Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of these district court rulings on March 21, 5 2011. [RP 1059] While that motion was pe nding, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal 6 with regard to these orders. [RP 1199] The pending motion for reconsideration 7 rendered the underlying March 7, 2011 judgment nonfinal and the first notice of 8 appeal ineffective and premature. See Grygorwicz v. Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 9 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (holding that “if a party makes a post-judgment motion 10 directed at the final judgment . . ., the time for filing an appeal does not begin to run 11 until the district court enters an express di sposition on that motion”). After the district 12 court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on May 26, 2011 [RP 1216], 13 Plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal on June 2, 2011. [RP 1219] Plaintiff 14 withdrew the amended notice of appeal, however, on June 23, 2011. [RP 1246] 15 The May 26, 2011 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was a 16 final, appealable order as to the Geo Group Defendants. SeeRule 1-054(B)(2) NMRA 17 (“When multiple parties are involved, judgm ent may be entered adjudicating all issues 18 as to one or more, but fewer than all parties. Such judgment shall be a final one unless 194 the court, in its discretion, expressly provi des otherwise and a provision to that effect 1 is contained in the judgment.”). The tim e for filing a timely notice of appeal with 2 regard to the Geo Group Defe ndants expired thirty days after the May 26, 2011 order. 3 SeeRule 12-201(D). Plaintiff withdrew the am ended notice of appeal filed within that 4 time period, however. We hold that Plaintiff did not timely appeal from the May 26, 5 2011 order. 6 Plaintiff then attempted to appeal the May 26, 2011 order with regard to the 7 Geo Group Defendants, as well as the July5, 2011 order with regard to Defendant 8 CMS, in the notice of appeal filed on August 5, 2011. As we disc ussed in the calendar 9 notices, and further discuss below, however , the August 5, 2011 notice of appeal is 10 untimely filed with regard to both the May 26, 2011 order and the July 5, 2011 order. 11 Plaintiff continues to argue that th is Court should apply Rule 1-054(B)(1) 12 instead of Rule 1-054(B)(2) to the proce dural facts of this case. [Response 3] 13 Plaintiff argues that all Plaintiff’s claims ag ainst all Defendants are interrelated, which 14 affects the finality of each of the underlyi ng orders regarding each of the Defendants. 15 [2nd MIO 3-6] Plaintiff also contends that fairness and due proce ss require this Court 16 to construe the underlying orders as nonfinal when entered. [2nd MIO 5-9] Finally, 17 Plaintiff argues that principles of equityand his allegations of Defendants’ fraud 185 compel this Court to take jurisdiction in this case. [2nd MIO 9-11] We are not 1 persuaded. 2 At the time the order was entered, Plainti ff could have requested that the district 3 court declare nonfinal the order adjudicating all of Plaintiff’s claims against the Geo 4 Group Defendants, pursuant to the express language of Rule 1-054(B)(2). [Reply 3] 5 Plaintiff did not do so, and absent this language, the order was final and appealable 6 as of May 26, 2011, with regard to the Ge o Group Defendants. As we discussed in 7 the second calendar notice, for the district court or this Court to now declare these 8 orders to have been nonfinal would be “i nherently unfair to the parties against whom 9 final judgments were enter[ed], in some cases , more than a year ago.” [Reply, Exhibit 10 B 3] We hold that this Court lacks jurisdiction to reach the merits of Plaintiff’s 11 appeals with regard to both the May 26, 2011 and July5, 2011 orders and their 12 underlying judgments filed on September 24, 2010 and March 7, 2011, relating to the 13 Geo Group Defendants. 14 We grant the Geo Group Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal. 15 The Memoranda in Opposition. As we discussed in the first and second 16 calendar notices, appellate requirements fo r time and place of filing should be termed 17 “mandatory” rather than “jurisdictional,” and an appellate court has discretion to hear 18 an appeal if a party has failed to comp ly with such mandatory preconditions. See 196 Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc. , 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 (1991). Generally, 1 however, “[o]nly the most unusual circ umstances beyond the control of the 2 parties—such as error on the part of the court—will warrant overlooking procedural 3 defects.” Trujillo v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 273, 278, 871 P.2d 369, 374 (1994). 4 Plaintiff’s memoranda in opposition to th e first and second calendar notices do not 5 persuade us that there are any unusual circ umstances in this case, beyond the control 6 of the parties, that warrant this Court overlooking the untimely filing of the notice of 7 appeal against Defendant CMS. See, e.g., Wakeland v. N.M. Dep’t of Workforce 8 Solutions , 2012-NMCA-021, ¶ 25, __ N.M. __, __ P.3d __, cert. denied, 2012-NMSC9 __, __ N.M. __, __ P.3d __ (No. 33,351, Jan. 19, 2012) (hol ding that “[s]imply being 10 confused or uncertain about the appropriateprocedure for seeking review is not the 11 sort of unusual circumstance beyond the control of a party that will justify an untimely 12 filing”). 13 With regard to Defendant CMS, Plainti ff appeals from the district court’s order 14 filed on April 22, 2011 [RP 1241], and the order denying his motion for 15 reconsideration filed on July 5, 2011. [RP 1252] The time for filing the notice of 16 appeal expired thirty days after the entry of the district court’ s July 5, 2011 order 17 denying Plaintiff’s post-trial motion to reconsider, on August 4, 2011. See Rule 12- 18 201(D) (providing that “[i]f a party timely files a motion pursuant to Section 39-1-1 197 NMSA 1978, Paragraph B of Rule 1-050 NMRA, Paragraph D of Rule 1-052 NMRA, 1 or Rule 1-059 NMRA, the full tim e prescribed in this rule for the filing of the notice 2 of appeal shall commence to run and be com puted from the entry of an order expressly 3 disposing of the motion”). In this case, the notice of appeal was untimely filed on 4 August 5, 2011, more than thirty days after the district court denied Plaintiff’s post5 judgment motion for reconsideration on July 5, 2011. [RP 1255] 6 Moreover, we note that Rule 12-201(D) only operates to extend the filing of a 7 notice of appeal to a timely filed post-judgment motion listed in that subsection. Rule 8 1-059(B) NMRA provides that “[a] motion fo r a new trial shall be served not later 9 than ten (10) days after the entry of the judgment.” Plaintiff’s motion for 10 reconsideration was untimely filed on May 12, 2011, more th an ten (10) days 11 (excluding weekends and holidays) after th e April 22, 2011 order had been filed. 12 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff continue s to argue in his memoranda that his 13 motion for reconsideration was timely file d under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, we continue 14 to point our that the filing of a Rule 1-060(B) motion does not affect the finality of the 15 underlying judgment, or suspe nd its operation, and therefor e it does not affect or toll 16 the time for filing the notice of appeal from it. See, e.g., Martinez v. Friede , 17 2004-NMSC-006, ¶ 17, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 596 (noting that a district court’s 18 power to reopen judgment and grant a new trial under Rule 1-060(B) has “no effect 198 on the parties’ ability to calculate the timein which they must file their notice of 1 appeal . . . because a motion under Rule 1- 060(B) ‘does not affect the finality of a 2 judgment or suspend its ope ration’”) (citation omitted), superseded by rule on other 3 grounds as stated in State v. Moreland, 2008-NMSC-031, 144 N.M. 192, 185 P.3d 4 363. 5 Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration could be 6 considered a timely filed Rule 1-060(B) mo tion, it was ruled upon by the district court 7 in its order denying the motion on July 5, 2011. As we have fully discussed above, 8 Plaintiff filed an untimely notice of appeal from the district court’s July 5, 2011 order 9 on August 5, 2011. We hold, therefore, thatthis Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 10 the merits of Plaintiff’s issues on appeal raised again in his memoranda in opposition. 11 [MIO 5-7, 2nd MIO] 12 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff continues to argue that the numerous final, 13 appealable orders granted, one by one, in favor of each Defendant in this case over the 14 course of the litigation should now be c onsidered nonfinal [MIO 7-8, 2nd MIO], we 15 have already discussed above that at the time they were entered, Plaintiff failed to 16 request that the district court declare nonfin al the orders adjudicating all of Plaintiff’s 17 claims against each Defendant, pursuant to the express language of Rule 1-054(B)(2). 18 [Reply 3] Absent this language, the orders were final and appealable with regard to 199 each Defendant when entered. As we stated above, for the district court or this Court 1 to now declare these orders to have been nonfinal would be “inherently unfair to the 2 parties against whom final judgments were enter[ed], in some cas es, more than a year 3 ago.” [Reply, Exhibit B 3] We dismiss the appeal with regard to Defendant CMS. 4
CONCLUSION 5 We grant the Geo Group Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We dismiss Plaintiff’s 6 appeal against Defendant CMS. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 13

14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 15