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, acting pro se, appealed from a district court's order of dismissal. The appeal was based on the claim that the notice of appeal was filed within the allowable time frame, despite the district court's final order of dismissal being issued earlier. The Plaintiff also filed motions in the Court of Appeals to add a party and to substitute the district court judge within the same time frame as the alleged notice of appeal filing.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, June 1, 2011: Order of dismissal issued against the Plaintiff.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the appeal was timely filed on June 29, 2011, based on the filing of two motions in the Court of Appeals, which were intended to add a party and to substitute the district court judge.
• Defendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed within the required time frame as per appellate rules.
• Whether the filing of motions in the Court of Appeals to add a party and to substitute the district court judge can be considered as meeting the obligation to timely file a notice of appeal.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.
• The Plaintiff's motion to substitute the district court judge was denied.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Cynthia A. Fry with concurrence from Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Michael E. Vigil, found that the Plaintiff did not comply with the appellate rules requiring the notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days of the district court's final judgment. The Court noted that pro se litigants are required to follow the same rules and orders as those represented by counsel and that the Plaintiff's filing of unrelated motions within the appeal filing timeframe did not fulfill the requirement to timely file a notice of appeal. The Court also highlighted that only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the parties would an untimely appeal be entertained, which was not the case here.