February 26, 2019- Sheriff Marco Lucero v. Los Alamos County Council, No. A-1-CA-37579

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

l

2

co

10
1]

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

|

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

SHERIFF MARCO LUCERO, Filed 2/26/2019 10:32 AM
i | >
Plaintiff-Appellant, Ad. ~f—
Mark Reynolds
V. NO. A-1-CA-37579

LOS ALAMOS COUNTY COUNCIL,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOS ALAMOS COUNTY
Francis J. Mathew, District Judge

Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP
A. Blair Dunn
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant
Office of the County Attorney
Joseph Alvin Leaphart, IV
Joseph L. Romero
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
(3 The sheriffofLos Alamos County (Sheriff) appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit

seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Los Alamos County Council. [DS

2] This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm

—

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

the district court’s dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion. [CN 5] Sheriff has filed
a memorandum in opposition to that proposed disposition. Having duly considered
that memorandum, we remain unpersuaded and now affirm.

2}, As our calendar notice pointed out, Sheriff's docketing statement challenged
neither the factual basis for the district court’s judgment nor the district court’s
application of the doctrine of claim preclusion. [CN 3, 4] See State v. Aragon, 1999-
NMCA-060, § 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (explaining that the party claiming
error bears the burden of showing such error). Similarly, Sheriff's memorandum
opposing affirmance does not challenge any of the facts relied upon in this Court’s
notice of proposed summary disposition and does not assert any legal error contained
in that notice. See State v. Sisneros, 1982-NMSC-068, 4 7, 98 N.M. 201, 647 P.2d
403 (explaining that a response to a calendar notice must specifically point out legal
or factual errors in the notice). Instead, Sheriff asserts that if this case is precluded by
the judgment in a prior case between these parties, then the earlier judgment should
somehow be “overturned” by this Court. [MIO 4] Sheriff does not suggest how this
Court might go about “overturning” an unappealed district court judgment. In any
event, we conclude that Sheriff has not met his burden, in opposing the proposed

summary disposition, to “specifically point out errors in fact and in law.” Id.

10

{3} Thus, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary

disposition, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

LINDAM. YANZL, Judge!

{4} ITISSO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

snl

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

Lastro- Boyes tad,

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge