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 Plaintiff, Bryce Franklin, a self-represented individual, filed a complaint under the Inspection of Public Records Act seeking documents from the State Defendants related to contracts involving the Lea County Corrections Facility. The State Defendants claimed to have complied with the statutory provisions by making all materials in the New Mexico Corrections Department's custody available to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contested the sufficiency and authenticity of the Defendants' compliance, specifically challenging the veracity of an affidavit and the availability of certain materials in the library.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that one of the affidavits submitted by the State Defendants was made in bad faith and that some materials were not available in the library as claimed. The Plaintiff also contended that the State Defendants improperly attempted to pass on disclosure duties to Geo Corp and that the affidavits supporting the State Defendants' motion for summary judgment were vague and inadmissible.
• State Defendants: Asserted that they complied with the requisite statutory provisions of the Inspection of Public Records Act by making all materials in the New Mexico Corrections Department's custody available to the Plaintiff. They supported their motion for summary judgment with affidavits and documents demonstrating this compliance.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State Defendants complied with the Inspection of Public Records Act by making all relevant materials in their custody available to the Plaintiff.
• Whether the affidavits and documents provided by the State Defendants were sufficient to support their motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

• The motion for summary judgment in favor of the State Defendants was granted.

Reasons

• Per MEDINA, J., with HENDERSON, J., and YOHALEM, J., concurring:
  The Court found that summary judgment was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact and the State Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law (para 2). The State Defendants made a prima facie showing of compliance with the Inspection of Public Records Act, supported by affidavits and documents (para 3). The Plaintiff's response, challenging the veracity of an affidavit and the availability of materials, did not provide evidence sufficient to establish that documents were withheld or to create a genuine issue of material fact (para 4). The Court also addressed the Plaintiff's arguments in his memorandum in opposition, finding them insufficient to dispute the State Defendants' compliance or to challenge the grant of summary judgment effectively (para 5). The Court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the State Defendants, concluding that the affidavits and documents provided by the State Defendants supported their compliance with the Inspection of Public Records Act and justified the summary judgment (paras 3-6).