July 1, 2019-Bryce Franklin v. Alisha Lucero, No. A-1-CA-37393

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	BRYCE FRANKLIN,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. 	NO. A-1-CA-37393
5 	SANDY FRANKLIN and
6 NICK GONZALES,
7 	Plaintiffs,
8 v.
9 ALISHA LUCERO, Head Warden of
10 PNM; NEW MEXICO DEB-ARTMENT
11 	OF CORRECTIONS; and PENITENTIARY
12 OF NEW MEXICO,
13 	Defendants-Appellees.
14 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
15 	David K. Thomson, District Judge
16 Bryce Franklin
17 Santa Rosa, NM
18 	Pro Se Appellant
19 N.M. Corrections Department
20 Paula E. Ganz, Deputy General Counsel
21 	Santa Fe, NM
22 	for Appellees
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/1/2019 11:23 AM

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 V ANZI, Judge.
3 	{t} 	Plaintiff Bryce Franklin, a self-represented inmate, appeals from the district
4 	court's order of dismissal that grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants on
5 grounds that Plaintiff failed to 	exhaust his 	administrative remedies 	as to his
6 grievances about the prison's treatment of his mail. Unpersuaded that Plaintiff
7 established error, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to
8 affirm. Defendant has responded to our notice with a memorandum in opposition. We
9 remain unpersuaded that the record shows error, and affirm the dismissal of his
10 	complaint.
11 	{2} 	On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in dismissing his case:
12 	(1) by ruling that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) by considering
13 	matters outside of the pleadings; and (3) by failing to notify Plaintiffthat Defendants'
14 motion was converted to one for summary judgment. [DS 3] In examining Plaintiff's
15 	challenge to dismissal for his failure to exhaust remedies, we combed the record in
16 attempts to find grievances related to the complaint and to determine whether they
17 complied with the grievance process to demonstrate the futility of exhaustion, as
18 	Plaintiff alleges. [CN 4-6] We ultimately proposed to conclude that Plaintiff's
19 showing was too underdeveloped to demonstrate error and would require us to
2

1 presume error in a manner disallowed by our standard of review. See Farmers, Inc.
2 v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ,-f 8, 111 N.M. 6,800 P.2d 1063
3 (stating that we presume correctness on appeal, and the appellant must clearly and
4 affirmatively demonstrate district court error).
5 	{3} 	In response to our notice, Plaintiff contends we erred in our understanding of
6 the grievance procedure, the effect of his "sworn statement," his inability to establish
7 exhaustion of remedies after filing the complaint, and the potential impact of his
8 punishment for possessing escape paraphernalia on his mail -privileges. [MIO 3-1 O]
9 Plaintiff does not explain, however, his understanding of the grievance procedure and
10 how he demonstrated_that each of his grievances relate to his complaint and satisfy
11 	the grievance procedure, which sworn statement he relies on and the basis for his
12 understanding of its effect, and the actual impact of his punishment for possessing
13 	escape paraphernalia. The record and Plaintiffs assertions on appeal leave us without
14 fundamental and crucial details upon which a showing of error in summary judgment
15 	needed to have been predicated.
16 {4} 	A sufficiently developed record in this case would have shown: how inmates
17 file grievances; how to determine whether a grievance was filed; whether inmates
18 receive copies of their grievances; how the inmate mail system works; what mail
19 privileges are lawfully curtailed in prison; the actual punishment Plaintiff received
3

1 for possessing escape paraphernalia and why it did not impact his claims about the
2 withholding or censorship of his mail; and, importantly, how each of the grievances
3 Plaintiff alleges to have filed were related to the claims in his complaint, were timely
4 made from the alleged incidents, contained the requisite detail, and were sufficiently
5 pursued with formal grievances or otherwise complied with the procedure.
6 {5} 	To the extent that Plaintiff contends we erred in our attempts to understand the
7 record and arguments he presented to us, this simply underscores the importance of
8 our guiding principles of appellate review. This Court should "not search the record
9 for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments." Muse
10 v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003,, 72, 145 N.M. 451,200 P.3d 104. And we should "not
11 	review unclear arguments, or guess at what a party's arguments might be." Elane
12 Photography, LLC v. 	Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, , 	70, 309 P.3d 53 (alteration,
13 	internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Sqch endeavors require this Court "to
14 develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties' work for them[, and
15 	such endeavors] ... create[] a strain on judicial resources and a substantial risk of
16 error" and explaining further that "[i]t is of no benefit either to the parties or to future
17 litigants for this Court to promulgate case law based on our own speculation rather
18 than the parties' carefully considered arguments." Id.
4

1 {6} 	While we recognize that Defendants and the district court could have been
2 more responsive to Plaintiffs claim and helpful for our review, it is the appellant's
3 	burden to present us an adequate record and clearly demonstrate error. See Sandoval
4 	v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009-NMCA-095, 165, 146 N.M. 853,
5 215 P .3 d 791 ("It is the duty of the appellant to provide a record adequate to review
6 the issues on appeal."); Farmers, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, 18. Without a developed
7 record and detailed arguments about each of Plaintiffs grievances, we cannot find
8 error in the district court's dismissal. See Elane Photography, LLC, 2013-NMSC-040,
9 170; Sandoval, 2009-NMCA-095, 165 ("Upon a doubtful or deficient record, every
10 presumption is indulged in favor of the correctness and regularity of the trial court's
11 	decision, and the appellate court will indulge in reasonable presumptions in support
12 	of the order entered." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); 	Muse,
13 	2009-NMCA-003, 172.
14 	{7} 	Plaintiff also continues to challenge the district court's consideration of matters
15 	outside of the pleadings and its failure to notify Plaintiff that Defendants' motion was
16 converted to one for summary judgment. [MIO 10-11] In response to our notice,
17 Plaintiff appears to argue that because some of his claims arise under federal law, the
18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should apply. [MIO 10-11] Plaintiff refers us to no
19 authority to support this position, and we are not persuaded. See Curry v. Great Nw.
5

1 Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-03 l, 128,320 P.3d 482 ("Where a party cites no authority to
2 support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists."); see also Rule 1-001
3 NMRA (explaining the scope of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure: "These
4 rules govern the procedure in the district courts of New Mexico in all suits of a civil
5 nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity except to the extent that the
6 New Mexico Rules of Evidence are inconsistent herewith").
7 	{8} 	For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's order granting
8 summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. ·
9 	{9} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
12 WE CONCUR:
13
14 M. MONICA ZAMORA,
L
~
1 f Judge.
6