August 25, 2020- Theodore Lujan v. Leandrea Romero, No. A-1-CA-38324

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 THEODORE LUJAN,
3 Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-38324
5 LEANDREA ROMERO,
6 Defendant-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Carl J. Butkus, District Judge
9 Theodore Lujan
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellant
12 ADC LTD NM
13 Charles S. Archuleta
14 Albuquerque, NM
15 for Appellee
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VARGAS, Judge.
18 {1} Plaintiff, a self-represented inmate, appeals from the district court’s order
19 dismissing his complaint for the failure to state a claim under Rule 1-012(B)(6)
20 NMRA. Unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s docketing statement, we issued a notice of
21 proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Plaintiff has responded to our
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 8/25/2020 11:17 AM

2
1 notice with a memorandum in opposition, and Defendant has filed a memorandum in
2 support. We have considered the parties’ responses and affirm the district court’s
3 dismissal.
4 {2} Our notice proposed to affirm the district court’s order of dismissal on grounds
5 that Plaintiff’s claim of intentional alienation of his children’s affections is not a
6 recognized cause of action in New Mexico. [CN 2-3] We further proposed to hold
7 that dismissal of Plaintiff’s remaining claims of intentional infliction of emotional
8 distress and loss of consortium was proper because Defendant’s alleged conduct and
9 care for Plaintiff’s children in the course of her guardianship is not actionable by
10 Plaintiff in this context, and there is no recognized, underlying tort of alienation of
11 affections. [CN 3-4] Lastly, we observed that Plaintiff’s claims appear to be an
12 attempt to collaterally attack orders in separate litigation affecting Plaintiff’s parental
13 rights and involving Defendant’s guardianship of the children. [CN 2] We noted that
14 the current tort action is not the proper mechanism to challenge such orders and
15 should not succeed in doing so. [CN 2]
16 {3} In response to our notice, Plaintiff complains that we made factual mistakes
17 about the amount and type of child abuse convictions he has had, and asserts that he
18 has not lost his parental rights. [MIO 1] Even assuming we were mistaken about these
19 matters, they play no dispositive roles in our proposed analysis. Plaintiff also

3
1 continues to complain about Defendant’s intentional alienation of his children. [MIO
2 1] Plaintiff does not explain how he alleged recognized and supported causes of
3 action in district court or why he can raise such claims in light of other litigation that
4 appears to govern Defendant’s guardianship of the children. As a result, Plaintiff has
5 not demonstrated error to this Court.
6 {4} For the reasons set forth in our notice and in this opinion, we affirm the district
7 court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims.
8 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
11 WE CONCUR:
12
13 J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge
14
15 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge