Court Opinion

ID: 9957071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 16:09:19.513423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.794994
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-40979

BRYCE FRANKLIN,

      Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE GEO GROUP, NEW MEXICO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
and KEVIN L. NAULT,

      Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
Maria Sanchez-Gagne, District Court Judge

Bryce Franklin
Las Cruces, NM

Pro Se Appellant

YLAW, P.C.
Michael S. Jahner
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee The Geo Group

Ortiz & Zamora, Attorneys at Law, LLC
Tony F. Ortiz
Eugene (Geno) I. Zamora
Jessica R. Tarrazas
Michael R. Jones
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellees New Mexico Department of Corrections
and Kevin L. Nault
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

MEDINA, Judge.

{1}    Plaintiff Bryce Franklin, who is self-represented, appeals from a district court
order granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendants New Mexico
Corrections Department and Kevin Nault (collectively, State Defendants). We issued a
calendar notice proposing to affirm. Plaintiff has responded with a memorandum in
opposition. We affirm.

{2}    “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Self v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582. “We review these legal
questions de novo.” Id.

{3}     Here, Plaintiff’s Inspection of Public Records Act complaint sought documents
from State Defendants related to contracts involving the Lea County Corrections
Facility. [RP 1] State Defendants’ amended cross-motion for summary judgment
indicated that the requisite statutory provisions were complied with, and all materials in
the New Mexico Corrections Department’s custody had been made available to Plaintiff.
[RP 146] Attached to the summary judgment motion were affidavits and documents that
supported the State Defendants’ assertion of compliance. [RP 151-61] This was a
sufficient showing for summary judgment. See Roth v. Thompson, 1992-NMSC-011, ¶
17, 113 N.M. 331, 825 P.2d 1241 (“The movant need only make a prima facie showing
that he is entitled to summary judgment.”).

{4}     Plaintiff responded by arguing that one of the affidavits was made in bad faith,
and that some of the materials were not available in the library. [RP 179, 188] Plaintiff’s
response was not supported by any evidence tending to establish that documents
actually in the custody of the New Mexico Corrections Department were being withheld.
Stated differently, Plaintiff’s affidavit makes no showing that he has personal knowledge
that contradicts the Department’s affidavit [RP 188] and as a result, his unsupported
assertions are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the central issue:
whether State Defendants’ complied with relevant statutory provisions by producing all
materials in the New Mexico Corrections Department’s custody. See generally
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. MacLaurin, 2015-NMCA-061, ¶ 12, 350 P.3d 1201
(rejecting an argument advanced on appeal in opposition to an award of summary
judgment, where the only factual support in the record was the defendants’ own
assertion).

{5}    In Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition, he breaks his argument into three
points, which may be consolidated into two general points. First, he claims that
dismissal of the State Defendants was improper because the State attempted to pass
on disclosure duties to Geo Corp. However, regardless of whatever role Geo played in
this matter, the State Defendants submitted an affidavit of the Correction Department’s
designated records custodian for this case. [RP 153] She stated under oath that she
was tasked with ensuring compliance with IPRA, and that she had turned over all
requested documents that were in the State’s possession. [RP 153-154] Finally,
Plaintiff’s remaining argument is that the State Defendants failed to establish a prima
facie showing that they were entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff characterizes the
affidavits in support of summary judgment as vague and inadmissible. We disagree. Our
review of the State Defendants’ undisputed affidavits support the grant of summary
judgment in this case. Although Plaintiff claimed that some of the requested materials
were not available in the library at the time he went to review them, this does not
dispute the State Defendants’ affidavit that all materials in the State’s possession had
been turned over. A party opposing summary judgment may not simply argue that
evidentiary facts requiring a trial on the merits may exist, “nor may [a party] rest upon
the allegations of the complaint.” Dow v. Chilili Coop. Ass'n, 1986-NMSC-084, ¶ 13, 105
N.M. 52, 728 P.2d 462.

{6}   For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.

{7}   IT IS SO ORDERED.

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

WE CONCUR:

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge