Torres v. Gomez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 RUDY TORRES, 3 Plaintiff-Appellant, 4 v. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NO. 35,587 OFFICER VERONICA GOMEZ, OFFICER JOHN DOE I and OFFICER JOHN DOE II, individually and in their official capacities as officers of the Lovington Police Department, DAVID RODRIGUEZ, in his official capacity as the Chief of Police of the Lovington Police Department, PADDY DOWNEY, as the Administrator of the Lea County Detention Center, and the as yet unknown agents and employees of the LEA COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. 16 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 17 William G. Shoobridge, District Judge 18 The Sawyers Law Group 19 James W. Klipstine, Jr. 20 Hobbs, NM 21 for Appellant 22 Childress Law Firm 1 Ronald J. Childress 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 for Appellees Paddy Downey and the Lea County Detention Center 4 Potts & Associates 5 Amy L. Glasser 6 Albuquerque, NM 7 for Appellees Veronica Gomez, David Rodriguez, and the City of Lovington 8 Police Department 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION 10 WECHSLER, Judge. 11 {1} Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in district court, but judgment as a matter 12 of law was entered against him following presentation of his case. The district court’s 13 order was entered on January 27, 2016. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal in district 14 court on February 23, 2016, but he did not cause a copy of the notice of appeal to be 15 filed in this Court. In addition, Plaintiff requested an extension of time in which to file 16 a docketing statement from the district court, rather than this Court, despite the fact 17 that, unlike the situation with a notice of appeal, the district court has no authority to 18 grant an extension of time for filing a docketing statement in this Court. In any event, 19 no docketing statement has yet been filed in either this Court or the district court. 20 Defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to comply 21 with the rules of appellate procedure, and the deadline for filing a response to that 2 1 motion has passed. We therefore grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this 2 appeal due to Plaintiff’s failure to perfect the appeal by complying with Rules 123 202(E) and 12-208(B) NMRA. 4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 ________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8 ________________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 10 ________________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
