May 31, 2019- Vangie Arellano v. New Mexico Department of Health, No. A-1-CA-37428

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	VANGIE ARELLANO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 	V. 	NO. A-1-CA-37428
5 NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF
6 HEALTH and NEW MEXICO STATE
7 PERSONNEL BOARD,
8 	Defendants-Appel lees.
9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
10 Abigail Aragon, District Judge
11 	The Herrera Firm, P.C.
12 	Samuel M. Herrera
13 	Taos, NM
14 for Appellant
15 	Frank D. Weissbarth
16 Santa Fe, NM
17 	for Appellee New Mexico Department of Health
18 	Long, Komer & Associates, P.A.
19 Nancy R. Long
20 Jonas M. Nahoum
21 	Santa Fe, NM
22 	for Appellee New Mexico State Personnel Board
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/31/2019 9:08 AM

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 HANISEE, Judge.
3 	{I} 	Plaintiff has appealed from an order denying her various motions to set aside
4 a decision by an administrative law judge. We previously issued a notice of proposed
5 summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. 	Defendant has filed 	a
6 memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We
7 the refore affirm.
8 {2} 	The relevant background has previously been set forth. [DS 2-14] We will
9 avoid undue reiteration here, and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in
10 	opposition.
11 	{3} 	Plaintiff continues to assert that the district court erred in rejecting her claim
12 that the fifteen-month delay [DS 5] between the filing of her administrative appeal
13 	following her termination and the tribunal's hearing constituted a violation of her due
14 process rights and entitled her to a default judgment. [DS 14-15; MIO 1-9] We remain
15 	unpersuaded.
16 {4} 	As we previously observed, [CN 3] and as Plaintiff acknowledges, [MIO 4] not
17 	all delays constitute due process violations. See Hanson v. Turney, 2004-NMCA-069,
18 ,, 26-27, 136 N.M. 1, 94 P.3d 1 (rejecting the argument that adjudicative delays
19 categorically violate due process and/or entitle claimants to relief). Although in a
2

1 proper case, a sufficiently lengthy delay or a delay resulting in actual prejudice might
2 violate due process, we remain unpersuaded that either of those circumstances are
3 presented here. The delay in this case is far less egregious than the delay addressed
4 in Hanson, and Plaintiff has identified no prejudice, apart from the fact of the delay
5 itself. [MIO 6-8] Succinctly stated, the circumstances presented in this case do not
6 support a claim of entitlement to relief. See id.; cf Larsen v. Farmington Mun. Sch.,
7 2010-NMCA-094, 1110-12, 148 N.M. 926, 242 P.3d 493 (rejecting a claim that a
8 five-year delay between the plaintiffs discharge and the hearing on his grievance
9 denied him due process and entitled him to damages, where the plaintiff did not
10 contend that he suffered any particularlized prejudice from the delay). The various
11 	out-of-state authorities cited by Plaintiff [MIO 2-9] do not persuade us that a different
12 	result is warranted.
13 	{5} 	In closing, Plaintiff mentions her "alternate" arguments, 	relating to the
14 circumstances under which her motion for default judgment was denied by the
15 	administrative law judge. [MIO 9] In the notice of proposed summary disposition,
16 	[CN 4] 	we indicated that we understood these matters to be predicated upon
17 Plaintiffs larger due process argument, identified as the "general issue" in her
18 	docketing statement, [DS 15] concerning the effect of the administrative delay. The
19 	memorandum in opposition fails to explain how any of her sub-arguments could be
3

1 said to present viable issues, given our determination that the principle argument
2 lacks merit. See generally Rule 12-21 O(D)( 2) NMRA (providing that a memorandum
3 in opposition should set forth reasons why the proposed disposition should or should
4 not be made); State v. Sisneros, 1982-NMSC-068, ,r 7, 98 N.M. 201, 647 P.2d 403
5 (explaining that a party opposing a proposed summary disposition must specifically
6 point out errors in fact and law). Under the circumstances, we conclude that further
7 analysis is not warranted. See generally Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-
8 NMCA-045, ,r 15 , 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (noting that New Mexico courts
9 "will not review unclear arguments, or guess at what [litigants'] arguments might
10 be").
11 	{6} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed
12 	summary disposition, we affirm.
13 	{7}
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 	WE CONCUR:
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
17 J______..!~~.J:t1.st=::::!:::::::::::=.:====-~~-
18
19 	tt~~20 	KRI INA BOG~S, Judge
4