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 an appeal by Respondent-Appellant Abelino Lopez against numerous orders of the district court. This appeal marks his second attempt to challenge the court's decisions. The specific nature of the orders and the events leading to the appeal are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant Abelino Lopez: Filed a "Memorandum Color of Law" in opposition to the court's notice proposing to affirm the district court's orders. He asserts misconduct by the district court and opposing counsel, along with violations of his and his child's constitutional rights (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the orders from which Respondent seeks to appeal are final and appealable.
• Whether the district court's award of attorney fees was made in error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed, in part, and affirmed, in part, the orders of the district court (para 6).

Reasons

• The decision was unanimously made by Judges Timothy L. Garcia, Michael E. Vigil, and Stephen G. French. The court proposed to dismiss parts of the appeal due to the non-finality of the custody determination and issues related to an order of protection and its addendum from a separate case, as these did not constitute final judgments (para 2). Additionally, the court proposed to affirm the district court's award of attorney fees, noting that the Respondent did not raise any specific issues or provide arguments, facts, or authority demonstrating error in this award (para 2-3). The court dismissed the Respondent's memorandum in opposition due to its failure to point out specific errors of law and fact, instead continuing to make assertions regarding misconduct and constitutional violations without substantiation (para 3). The court also reminded the Respondent that, despite his pro se status, he is held to the same standards of conduct and compliance with court rules as are members of the bar (para 4). Finally, the court cautioned the Respondent against making scurrilous allegations of misconduct in the future, warning of potential monetary sanctions or rejection of pleadings (para 5).