This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS 7 DEPARTMENT, 8 Plaintiff-Appellant, 9

v. NO. 30,201 10 JESSE CHAVEZ, 11 Defendant-Appellee, 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 13 John W. Pope, District Judge 14 N.M. Department of Corrections 15 Carlos Elizondo 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellee 18 David C. Chavez 19 Los Lunas, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 FRY, Chief Judge. 23 Appellant New Mexico Department of Co rrections is appealing from a district 24 court order addressing the cal culation of back benefits based on an earlier ruling that 252 reversed the New Mexico State Personnel Bo ard, reinstating Appellee to his position 1 at the Department. We issued a calendar notice proposing to hold that the district 2 court erred in reaching this issue prior to the exhaustion of the administrative 3 procedures that govern the calculation of back pay. Appellee has responded with a 4 memorandum in opposition. Not persuade d, we reverse the district court. 5 On appeal, the Department is challenging the district court’s authority to act as 6 a fact finder during the course of the agen cy’s administrative calculation of benefits. 7 Our calendar notice proposed to agree with th e Department that the district court was 8 required to act in its appellate capacity. See Rule 1-074 NMRA; NMSA 1978, § 39-3- 9 1.1(C) (1999). In engaging in fact findi ng and calculating benefits, we believe that 10 the district court exceeded its authority as an appellate court. See Cadena v. 11 Bernalillo County Bd. of County Comm’rs , 2006-NMCA-036, 139 N.M. 300, 131 12 P.3d 687 (holding that in such proceedings the district court acts outside its role as an 13 appellate court when it engages in fact finding); see also 1.7.12.23(B) NMAC (setting 14 forth procedure for Board to calculate back pay). 15 In his memorandum in opposition, Appellee argues that the district court made 16 a legal ruling. However, th is legal ruling - that the Department was not entitled to an 17 offset - was accompanied by a specific monetaryamount that is inherently factual. To 18 the extent that the ruling involves a pure issue of law, we believe that this is 193 premature, because the agency has yet to complete its cal culation of benefits. “Under 1 the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine, where relief is available from an 2 administrative agency, the plaintiff is ordi narily required to pursue that avenue of 3 redress before proceeding to the courts; and until that recourse is exhausted, suit is 4 premature and must be dismissed.” US W. Commc'ns, Inc. v. N.M. State Corp. 5
Comm'n , 1998-NMSC-032, ¶ 9, 125 N.M. 798, 965 P.2d 917 (alteration in original) 6 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingl y, we reverse the district 7

court. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12

13 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 14

15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 16