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, an inmate, filed a complaint under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) against the New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD), alleging violations for not permitting inspection of certain prison records and all public records contained in his prison file. The Plaintiff's IPRA request included documents related to appeals from inmates in the "Predator Behavior Management Program" (PBMP) and public records in his inmate file. The Defendant did not provide the requested documents but offered justifications for its refusal (paras 3, 12).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment to Defendant, determining that Defendant was not required to create records, Plaintiff’s status as an inmate prevented him from accessing other inmates’ files, and Defendant reasonably required Plaintiff to make arrangements with his caseworker to view his inmate case file (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendant violated IPRA by failing to permit inspection of PBMP appeals and all public records contained in Plaintiff's prison file. Acknowledged facts are undisputed and sought review of records from other inmates' files and his own inmate file (paras 5, 9, 12).
• Defendant: Responded that it does not keep a database or log of PBMP appeals or referrals, thus has no records concerning Plaintiff's request. Asserted that inmates are not permitted to view other inmates' case files per regulation, and that Plaintiff was entitled to review his inmate case file by making arrangements with his caseworker (paras 6, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendant violated IPRA by failing to permit inspection of PBMP appeals and all public records contained in Plaintiff's prison file.
• Whether Defendant's refusal to provide requested documents was justified under IPRA and existing regulations (paras 5, 9, 12).

Disposition

• Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges Wray, Ives, and Yohalem concurring, found that:
  Defendant did not violate IPRA with its response to Plaintiff’s second and third PBMP requests as they were not crafted with reasonable particularity to obtain anything more than statistical data, which Defendant claimed not to possess. IPRA does not require records custodians to create public records (para 8).
  Plaintiff’s first PBMP request sought all PBMP appeals submitted, which was made with reasonable specificity. However, Defendant asserted a statutory exception based on prison regulations prohibiting an inmate from accessing the content of another inmate’s file, which the Court found Defendant did not waive the opportunity to assert (paras 9-10).
  Regarding Plaintiff's request for his inmate case file, the Court found Defendant's response to be incomplete or inadequate as Plaintiff had made efforts to view his file through caseworkers without success. The Court viewed this as a failure to comply with IPRA, necessitating a remand to determine the reasonableness of Defendant’s failure to provide for inspection of Plaintiff’s inmate file and the scope of any IPRA remedy (paras 12-14).