This decision was not selected for publication inthe New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 MARION DUBEAU, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3 v. No. 36,018 4
JOHN HOGDEN, 5 Respondent-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 7 Matthew J. Wilson, District Judge 8 Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP 9 Julie A. Wittenberger 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 John Hogden 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE, Judge. 17
{1} Respondent John Hogden, a self-represented litigant, appeals from the district 18 court’s order denying his request that the district court judge recuse himself and 192 adopting the priority consultation recommendations. [2 RP 122] We entered a notice 1 of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss for lack of a final order. 2 Respondent has filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO) to our notice, challenging 3 our proposed disposition. We are unpersuaded by Respondent’s arguments and 4 therefore dismiss. 5
{2} On appeal, Respondent raises eight issues relative to the district court’s rulings 6 in post-decree proceedings. Our calendar notice did not address the merits of 7 Respondent’s issues because, we explained, that it appeared that this case was not 8 properly before the Court. [CN 2-3] In response, Respondent 9 disputes this Courts proposal that there is no final 10 order in this case. [MIO 1-4] Respondent seeks a 11
definition of what it mean s to dispose of a case to 12 the fullest extent possible[.]  [MIO 1] We direct him 13 to the following language, set forth by our Supreme 14 Court in Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison : 15 To distill from all of this a general 16 principle that will provide an easy answer to 17 the question of when a judgment is final 18 and when it is not is probably a hopeless 19 undertaking. We agree with the United States 203 Supreme Court that it is impossible to 1 devise a formula to resolve all marginal 2 cases coming within the twilight zone of 3 finality. One formula, not yet mentioned in 4 this opinion, has been phrased by our court 5 of appeals as follows: The test of whether a 6 judgment is final so as to permit the taking 7 of an immediate appeal, lies in the effect 8 the judgment has upon the rights of some 9 or all of the parties. But this, of course, 10 fails to explain what kind of effect upon the 11 rights of the parties is necessary for an 12 order to be considered as final. 13 We probably can do little better than to 14 propose the following guidelines, which may 15 answer some but undoubtedly will not 16 answer all of the difficult questions falling 17 into the twilight zone: Where a judgment 18 declares the rights and liabilities of the 19 parties to the underlying controversy, a 20 question remaining to be decided thereafter 21 will not prevent the judgment from being 22 final if resolution of that question will not 23 alter the judgment or moot or revise 24 decisions embodied therein. Where a 25 postjudgment re quest, such as one for attorney[] fees, raises 26 issues “collateral to” and “separate from” the decision on the merits, 27 such a request will not destroy the finality of the decision ; 28 proceedings to carry out or give effect to 29 the judgment do not render the judgment 30 nonfinal, because the trial court always 314 retains jurisdiction to enforce its 1 unsuperseded judgment. 2 1992-NMSC-005,  20-21, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 3 1033 (internal quotation marks and citations 4 omitted). 5

{3} In this case, as we explained in our calendar 6 notice, the district court has yet to rule on 7 Respondents motion for the court to refrain from 8
court-ordered defamation. [1 RP 113; CN 3] Because 9 the motion is directed at certain findings contained 10 in the priority consultation, which the district court 11 adopted as an order of the courtthe order from 12 which Respondent seeks to appeala ruling on the 13 motion could alter, moot, orrevise the judgment of 14 the district court. In othe r words, the motion is not 15 collateral to or separate from the decision on the 16 merits. Accordingly, the decision is non-final. See id. 175 {4} We acknowledge the possibility that the district 1 court is under the impression, as Respondent 2 suggests, that it has resolv ed all outstanding issues. 3 [MIO 2-3] However, that does not change this 4 Courts assessment of finality in this case. We 5 suggest that Respondent invoke a ruling on the 6 motion and re-file his appeal, if he so desires, once 7 the district court explicitlyresolves the outstanding 8
motion. 9

{5} For the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and in this 10 opinion, we dismiss. 11
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 176 1 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 2