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, filed a tort claim action against the defendant, the Planning Department Manager of the City of Albuquerque, challenging the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy for a property. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the district court, leading to this appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Clay Campbell, District Judge: Dismissed the plaintiff's tort claim action against the defendant.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the defendant was a law enforcement officer under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, that the Board of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction over his appeal of a building permit and certificate of occupancy, and that the defendant owed him legal rights and duties.
• Defendants-Appellees: The specific arguments of the defendants-appellees are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that they opposed the plaintiff-appellant's claims and supported the district court's dismissal of the action.

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant is considered a law enforcement officer under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.
• Whether the Board of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction over the plaintiff's appeal of a building permit and certificate of occupancy.
• Whether the defendant owed any legal rights or legal duties to the plaintiff.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's tort claim action against the defendant.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring):
  The court found that the defendant is not a law enforcement officer as defined in the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, based on the job description for the Planning Department Manager (paras 3-4).
  The court held that the Zoning Board of Appeals did not have appellate jurisdiction over the plaintiff's appeal, and even if it did, the appeal was untimely filed. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of showing that the Board of Appeals erred in not exercising discretion to accept his appeal (paras 5-6).
  The court declined to address the issue of whether the defendant owed any legal rights or legal duties to the plaintiff, as this issue was not preserved for appellate review. The plaintiff did not respond to this issue in his memorandum in opposition, leading the court to deem the issue abandoned (paras 7-8).