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 the appellant, John Doyle, who was terminated from his position for just cause by the City of Albuquerque’s Personnel Board. The termination was based on an incident where Doyle kicked Nicholas Blume in the head, which was deemed an unauthorized use of deadly force (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, November 12, 2014: Affirmed the City of Albuquerque’s Personnel Board’s decision upholding John Doyle's termination for just cause (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (John Doyle): Argued that the district court erred in affirming the Personnel Board’s decision. Contended that his use of force should have been evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than the City’s policy on the use of force by police officers (paras 5-6).
• Respondent (City of Albuquerque): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in affirming the Personnel Board’s decision that upheld the appellant's termination for just cause based on the unauthorized use of deadly force (para 1).
• Whether the appellant's use of force should have been evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal based on an untimely [non-conforming] petition for writ of certiorari (para 8).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari, which is a mandatory precondition for the court's jurisdiction. The court found that a notice of appeal alone does not substitute for a petition for writ of certiorari and that the appellant's docketing statement, even if considered as a non-conforming petition, was not filed within the required thirty-day period following the district court's final action. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant's argument regarding the evaluation of his use of force under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard did not invoke the district court’s original jurisdiction, as it did not raise a claim of violation of the appellant's constitutional rights but rather argued for a specific standard to be applied in evaluating his termination for just cause (paras 2-7).