Marcos Padilla, an eighteen-year veteran correctional officer at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility, entered Building A of the prison and found that the standard security equipment was not in operation. He walked past the inactive machines into a secure area known as B Control, where the door closed and automatically locked behind him. Once inside, he realized he still had his personal cell phone and a pocketknife on his person.
Padilla asked the officer in B Control to open the door so he could return the items to his car. The officer refused and instead directed Padilla to report to the visitation room, where a contraband interdiction operation was underway. There, Padilla disclosed he had the cell phone and pocketknife but refused orders to surrender them. He was then escorted to the Warden’s office.
Warden Hatch explained to Padilla that refusing to surrender the cell phone for inspection could lead to his termination. Padilla again refused. He was directed to report to Human Resources to be placed on administrative leave. Only after leaving the prison facility did Padilla finally return the cell phone and pocketknife to his vehicle.
The New Mexico Corrections Department terminated Padilla for multiple policy violations. He had signed the department’s cell phone policy on four separate occasions, acknowledging he understood that cell phones were prohibited “in any correctional institution or at any security post.” The policy explicitly provided that employees found in violation “will be required to immediately surrender their device for inspection” and that refusal “will result in the employee’s dismissal.”
The State Personnel Board upheld the termination, finding Padilla violated the cell phone policy, was insubordinate by refusing multiple direct orders, and breached codes of conduct. The Board concluded his actions constituted “serious, intentional misconduct” and that there was just cause for dismissal.
Padilla appealed to the district court, which reversed the Board’s decision. The district court reasoned that the termination was based on an “arbitrary interpretation” of the cell phone policy rather than its exact language. The Court seemed to believe the Warden had misread the policy as containing a “per se dismissal rule” for failing to surrender a cell phone, and that this misreading was the sole basis for the firing.
The Board appealed.
On appeal, Padilla’s primary argument centered on a narrow reading of the cell phone policy. He contended that a violation at his facility could only occur at the specific moment an employee “attempts to clear a metal detector or their property enters the x-ray machine.” Since the machines in Building A were off, he argued, he never technically violated the policy by entering that building. He further argued that merely possessing a cell phone in B Control, a secure security post, was not a violation.
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that Padilla’s reading would nullify other clear provisions of the policy, including the broad prohibition against bringing a cell phone “into the institution or at any security post.” The Court found the Board’s interpretation — that Padilla violated the policy when he entered the B Control security post with his cell phone — was reasonable and not arbitrary.
Crucially, the Court found the district court had erred by focusing narrowly on the Warden’s interpretation. The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Board’s decision was not based solely on a misreading of the policy but was “predicated upon willful misconduct and insubordination.” The Board’s unchallenged findings showed Padilla knew he was not allowed to have a cell phone at his post, yet he entered a secure area with one and then repeatedly refused direct orders from his superiors to surrender it.
Padilla v. N.M. Corr. Dep’t, 2025 WL 2803398 (N.M. Ct. App. 2025).