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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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 PATRICIA KINNEY, ELIZABETH 7 HOFFMAN, JAMES SALOPEK, and 8 CHRISTINE BROWN, 9 Plaintiff-Appellees, 10

v. NO. 30,715 11 KEVIN J. HANRATTY, 12 Defendant-Appellant. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 14 Valerie Mackie Huling, District Judge 15 The Pickett Law Firm 16 Keith S. Burns 17 Las Cruces, NM 18 for Appellees 19 Kevin J. Hanratty 20 Artesia, NM 21 Pro Se Appellant 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 KENNEDY, Judge. 24 Defendant appeals pro se from J udge Malott’s order denying Defendant’s 252 motion to recuse, imposing sanctions on Defendant pursuant to Rule 1-011 NMRA, 1 and then sua sponte recusing himself because hecould not be impartial or, at the least, 2 there was an appearance of impropriety. [RP 583-585] We proposed to dismiss for 3 lack of a sufficiently final order in a notice of proposed summary disposition. 4 Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition characterizing our proposed disposition 5 as “summary affirmance” instead of di smissal. After re viewing Defendant’s 6 memorandum, which fails to address our c oncerns as to finality, we are unconvinced 7 that our proposed disposition is in error, and thus we dismiss Defendant’s appeal for 8 lack of a sufficiently final order. 9 As discussed more fully in our notice of proposed summary disposition, the 10 right to appeal is restricted to final judgments and decisions. See NMSA 1978, 11 § 39-3-2 (1966); Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 234-40, 824 P.2d 12 1033, 1036-42 (1992). In this case, Plainti ffs’ claims against Defendant for legal 13 malpractice in connection with a probate proceeding and a challenge to the will of 14 Plaintiffs’ father are still pending. Furthermore, there are ongoing discovery issues, 15 pending summary judgment motions, and a possible trial on the merits. [ See generally 16 RP 671-780] Therefore, our notice of proposed summary judgment proposed to 17 conclude that Judge Malott’s order is not a final order because Defendant is still a 18 party to the proceedings, and Plaintiffs’ claims are still ongoing. We proposed to 193 dismiss because, in light of the numerous matters pending before the district court, 1 resolving the issues raised in Defendant’s appeal at this juncture would conflict with 2 our policy against fragmenting i ssues and piecemeal appeals. See Kelly Inn No. 102, 3
Inc. , 113 N.M. at 239, 824 P.2d at 1041. 4 In our previous notice, we also considered Defendant’s contention that a writ 5 of error should issue because Judge Malott allegedly admitted “to personal animus by 6 a party before he was appointed to th e bench.” [DS 10] We were unconvinced 7 because there is no indication that Judge Malott admitted to any personal animus by 8 anyone before he was appointed to the be nch. [RP 585] Moreover, to the extent 9 Defendant was challenging Judge Malott’s au thority to impose sanctions at a point 10 when he admittedly could not act with impartiality towards Defendant, [RP 585] we 11 proposed to hold that this matter was not appropriate for review by writ of error. See 12 Rule 12-503(E)(2) NMRA (noting the require ments for a writ of error which include 13 a showing that the order appealed from “( a) conclusively determines the disputed 14 question; (b) resolves an important issue co mpletely separate from the merits of the 15 action; and (c) would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment 16 because the remedy by way of appeal would be inadequate”); King v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 17 2004-NMCA-031, ¶ 16, 135 N.M. 206, 86 P.3d 631 (observing that collateral orders 18 in civil cases have historically been restricted to orders denying motions to dismiss 194 based on claims of immunity). 1 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant fails to address, much less 2 dispute, the analysis contained in our pr oposed disposition. [MIO 1-25] Instead, he 3 merely provides additional background inform ation regarding Plaintiffs’ malpractice 4 action and Defendant ’s motion seeking to recuse Judge Malott, and he restates his 5 arguments contending that Judge Malott’s actions were in error. [MIO 2-14] He also 6 provides an informal transcript of a porti on of the hearing before Judge Malott on July 7 9, 2010. [MIO 15-25] 8 In light of Defendant’s failure to address any of the reasoning contained in our 9 notice of proposed summary disposition, weremain convinced that Defendant is 10 seeking to appeal from an order which is interlocutory in nature and thus not 11 sufficiently final for purposes of appeal. We also remain convinced that Defendant 12 has failed to state a claim that is appropriate for consideration pursuant to a petition 13 for writ of error. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and those discussed in our notice of 16 proposed summary disposition, we dismi ss Defendant’s appeal because it is not 17 sufficiently final for purposes of appellate review, and to the extent Defendant seeks 18 review pursuant to a petition for writ of error, we deny his petition. 195 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

___________________________________ 2 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 3 WE CONCUR : 4

___________________________ 5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 6

___________________________ 7 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 8