AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The petitioner, Barrie Lee Derringer, filed a petition for an order of protection against her husband, the respondent, David Brian Derringer, alleging domestic abuse. A temporary order of protection was issued. The respondent, representing himself, opposed the petition and filed motions, including one to be named legal guardian of the petitioner for one year and another to mandate mediation for marital issues. After a hearing, the respondent's motions were denied, and the temporary order was replaced by a two-year order of protection. The respondent filed objections and numerous motions, including one alleging criminal perjury and fraud against the petitioner and her attorney, and appealed the two-year order to the district court, which affirmed the order of protection (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alisa A. Hadfield, District Judge: Issued a two-year order of protection against the respondent, which was affirmed upon the respondent's appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Alleged domestic abuse and sought an order of protection against the respondent.
• Respondent: Opposed the petition for an order of protection, requested to be named legal guardian of the petitioner, sought mediation for marital issues, and filed numerous motions including allegations of criminal perjury and fraud against the petitioner and her attorney.

Legal Issues

• Whether the order of protection violated the respondent's Second Amendment rights.
• Whether the respondent was properly served notice of the hearing before the special commissioner.
• Whether perjury and fraud by the petitioner and her attorney should result in the dismissal of the order of protection.
• Whether there was bias and prejudice against the respondent by the special commissioner.
• Whether the actions or order of the special commissioner violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. 1982.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment affirming the two-year order of protection against the respondent was upheld.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The court found that the respondent did not preserve his Second Amendment challenge for appeal as he did not raise the issue prior to his appeal (para 3). The court declined to vacate the order of protection due to alleged insufficient service of process, noting the respondent's active participation in the proceedings (para 4). The court refused to reweigh evidence regarding allegations of perjury and fraud by the petitioner and her attorney, stating that the special commissioner was in a better position to assess the credibility of the petitioner's fear (para 5). The court found no support for the respondent's claims of bias and prejudice by the special commissioner, noting that the respondent's contentions about witness testimony, cross-examination, and exhibits were without merit (para 6). The court also found the respondent's arguments regarding violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. 1982 to be undeveloped and not supported by the record (para 8).