AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The petitioner, Bryce Franklin, sought to enforce the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) by filing a petition against the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and Regina Chacon. Franklin's petition centered on issues related to the Department's response to his IPRA request, including the absence of a cover letter with the CD containing the requested records, the completeness of the response, and the treatment of his petition as a new IPRA request.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the Department's response to his IPRA request should have included a cover letter, that the response was incomplete, and that his petition for a writ of mandandus should have been treated as a new IPRA request, thereby triggering a new duty to respond.
• Respondents-Appellees: The specific arguments of the Respondents-Appellees are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the absence of a cover letter in the Department's IPRA response constituted a violation of the IPRA.
• Whether the Department's response to the petitioner's IPRA request was incomplete for failing to address a request for a cost estimate for hard copies.
• Whether the filing of a writ petition by the petitioner triggered a new duty for the Department to respond under the IPRA.
• Whether the petitioner's motion to amend the docketing statement to raise new issues should be granted.

Disposition

• The court denied the petitioner's motion to amend the docketing statement to raise new issues.
• The court affirmed the district court's order denying the petitioner's petition for a writ to enforce the IPRA.

Reasons

• ATTREP, Judge; concurred by J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge: The court found no authority requiring an IPRA response to be accompanied by a cover letter and thus affirmed the district court's conclusion that the absence of a cover letter did not amount to an IPRA violation (paras 1-2). Regarding the completeness of the Department's response, the court interpreted the petitioner's request for a cost estimate as not constituting a request for documents, thereby deeming the Department's response—sending the electronic documents requested—to be compliant with IPRA (paras 3-4). On the issue of whether a new duty to respond was triggered by the petitioner's filing of a writ petition, the court found no authority to support the petitioner's assertion and affirmed the district court's decision based on the facts contained in the petition (para 5). The court also denied the petitioner's motion to amend the docketing statement to raise new issues, citing a lack of explanation for how these issues were preserved below and for the omission of these issues from the original docketing statement (paras 6-7). Lastly, the court denied a separate motion filed by the petitioner seeking an order directed toward prison officials, as the facts involved were not part of the record on appeal and thus not reviewable (para 8).