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, a self-represented litigant, initially filed a complaint against Defendants Patrick Kearny, Teddy Kearny, and "Does 1 through 50, Inclusive," alleging violations of restrictive covenants. Subsequently, the Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to include governmental agencies and/or employees as defendants for alleged violations of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (TCA) and the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred by denying her motion to amend her complaint to add governmental agencies and/or employees as defendants for alleged violations of the TCA and IPRA (para 1).
• Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add governmental agencies and/or employees as defendants for alleged violations of the TCA and IPRA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint (para 8).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Henry M. Bohnhoff, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint. The proposed amended complaint was found to lack sufficient factual allegations to establish a waiver of governmental immunity, a violation of the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, or any other right under the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's assessment that allowing the amendment would be futile. The Plaintiff's reiteration of arguments previously made in her docketing statement and motion to reconsider did not persuade the Court of Appeals that the district court's decision was in error. Additionally, the Court noted that as the claimant, the Plaintiff was required to allege facts to support her claims for relief in her proposed amended complaint, which she failed to do. The Court also reminded that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel (paras 3-7).