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 case involves post-decree proceedings where the Respondent, John Hogden, a self-represented litigant, appealed from the district court's order. This order denied his request for the district court judge to recuse himself and adopted the priority consultation recommendations. The appeal was challenged based on the lack of a final order (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court judge should recuse himself and opposed the adoption of the priority consultation recommendations. He also raised eight issues relative to the district court’s rulings in post-decree proceedings and disputed the Court of Appeals' proposal that there was no final order in the case (paras 1-2).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court judge should have recused himself.
• Whether the priority consultation recommendations should have been adopted.
• Whether there was a final order from which the Respondent could appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges J. Miles Hanisee, Timothy L. Garcia, and M. Monica Zamora, unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal. The dismissal was based on the absence of a final order, as the district court had not yet ruled on the Respondent's "motion for the court to refrain from court-ordered defamation," which could potentially alter, moot, or revise the judgment of the district court. The Court suggested that the Respondent could invoke a ruling on the motion and re-file his appeal if desired, once the district court explicitly resolves the outstanding motion (paras 3-4).