This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 RICHARD LUJAN, 7 Petitioner-Appellant, 8

v. No. 30,335 9 THE HONORABLE ALEX M. 10 NARANJO and THE MAGISTRATE 11 COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RIO 12 ARRIBA, 13 Respondents-Appellees. 14 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 15 Barbara J. Vigil, District Judge 16 Jewell & Thompkins, P.C. 17 Nathaniel V. Thompkins 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 Gary K. King, Attorney General 21 P. Cholla Khoury, Assistant Attorney General 22 Santa Fe, NM 23 for Appellees 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION 25 SUTIN, Judge. 262 Following charges in magistrate court, Richard Lujan attempted to subpoena 1 documents from police agencies and a securityfirm for an in camera inspection by the 2 Magistrate Judge Alex Naranj o. The State filed a moti on for a protective order and 3 to quash the subpoenas. After Lujan filed a response, the court granted the State’s 4 motion. Naming Judge Naranjo and the magi strate court as re spondents, Lujan, as 5 petitioner, sought in the district court a writ of superintending control, a writ of 6 prohibition, and a stay of magistrate c ourt proceedings. The State responded and 7 Lujan replied. At the outset of a districtcourt hearing on Lujan’s petition, respondents 8 presented the district court with a “Noti ce of In Camera Inspection” issued by the 9 respondents that same day which granted the relief Lujan sought in his petition. Lujan 10 accepted “the [n]otice as being the relief sought in the [p]etition” and, after the district 11 court stated that it was denying the writ, Lujan requested an award of costs. The court 12 stated: 13 I’m not even sure about the ability to assess costs to the State. I’ll 14 tell you what, I’m going to preliminarily deny them, but if you find some 15 authority that convinces me otherwise, you can file a quick motion for 16 reconsideration. But I don’t see this as an appropriate issue given Judge 17 Naranjo’s actions to award costs in the matter. 18 Lujan then filed a motion for anaward of costs. At a h earing on the motion, the court 19 stated: 20 Thank you. I find the following: I don’t believe that this [c]ourt 21 has the authority to assess costs agai nst the Honorable Alex M. Naranjo 223 for exercising his judicial discreti on in initially quashing the subpoenas 1 and then subsequently agreeing to provide in[]camera review. 2 I don’t believe this [c]ourt has the authority to assess costs against 3 him or the [m]agistrate [c]ourt. 4 Without commenting on who the prevailing party was or was not, 5 I find that the motion for costs shall be denied on that basis, that I just 6 don’t believe it would be appropriate for this [c]ourt to assess costs for 7 his exercise of discretion in ini tially quashing the subpoenas and then 8 subsequently saying okay, I will provide in[]camera review. 9 So on that basis[,] I am going to deny the motion. Thank you. 10 We’ll be in recess. 11 The court then entered an order denyi ng the petition and costs, stating: 12 The [c]ourt being fully advised inthe premises and having heard 13 argument from all parties; wheref ore the [c]ourt hereby FINDS AND 14 ORDERS that [Lujan’s petition is] hereby DENIED because Judge 15 Naranjo issued a Notice of In[ C]amera Inspecti on on December 7, 16 2009[,] and [Lujan’s] request for costs [is] also denied pending the 17 submission of authority allowing this court to award costs. 18 The court denied Lujan’s motion for reconsid eration of the denial of costs. Lujan 19 appeals the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. We hold that the district 20 court did not err in denying Lujan’s motion for reconsideration. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Both parties agree that the standardof review is abuse of discretion. 23 Mascarenas v. Jaramillo , 111 N.M. 410, 415, 806 P.2d 59, 64 (1991). 244 Lujan argues that he is entitled to cost s, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39-3- 1 30 (1966), on the ground he was the prevailing party. This statute provides that “[i]n 2 all civil actions or proceedings of any kind, the party prevailing sh all recover his costs 3 against the other party unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.” Id. 4 Lujan faults the district court because the court failed to consider who was the 5 prevailing party and “did not provide a ‘ good cause’ reason in reaching [its] decision.” 6 According to Lujan, the court abused its discretion because it indicated that it did not 7 “believe it would be appropriate . . . to assess costs for [Naranjo’s] exercise of 8 discretion in initially quashing the subpoena s” and then granting in camera review. 9 We cannot say that the district court’ s costs ruling was untenable or contrary 10

to reason. See State v. Woodward , 121 N.M. 1, 4, 908 P.2d 231, 234 (1995) (“An 11 abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the 12 facts and circumstances of the case. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion 13 by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by 14 reason.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), abrogation on other grounds 15 recognized by State v. Granillo-Macias , 2008-NMCA-021, 143 N.M. 455, 176 P.3d 16 1187; Talley v. Talley , 115 N.M. 89, 92, 847 P.2d 323, 326 (Ct. App. 1993) (“When 17 there exist reasons both supporting and detracting from a trial court decision, there is 18 no abuse of discretion.”). Lu jan does not contend on appealthat the district court 195 erred in denying the petition. He contends only that the court erred in denying costs. 1 We are not going to question the districtcourt’s discretion under these peculiar 2 circumstances in which the respondents came in to the district court agreeing to allow 3 what Lujan had sought from the magistrate court. This was the basis on which the 4 district court denied Lujan’s petition. We hold that the district court did not err in 5 denying Lujan costs. We further hold that Lujan is not entitled to the appeal costs he 6 also seeks. 7 We see no reason to address Lujan’s other points on appeal, which are that 8 district courts have authority to award co sts in the interests of justice and under the 9 New Mexico Constitution, and that judicial immunity is not applicable. Even were 10 there any chance that Lujan mi ght present arguable points, our holding that the district 11 court did not abuse its discretion w ould still require that we affirm. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

_________________________________ 17 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 186 _________________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2