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

• Gregory White, a candidate for Sheriff of Los Alamos County, filed a pro se petition for injunction against the Los Alamos County Council, Manager, Chief of Police, and two County Attorneys. White claimed the County was failing to provide sufficient budget and personnel for the sheriff's office, that the sheriff's duties should include law enforcement and peacekeeping as per state statutes, and that the County Council violated the Open Meetings Act by improperly closing and conducting meetings (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• State ex rel. Vaughn v. Incorporated County of Los Alamos, No. 3194 (Dist. Ct., May 28, 1976): The court ruled that the County Charter's assignment of law enforcement duties to the police department, excluding the sheriff, conformed with the New Mexico Constitution and state statutes.
• Lucero v. Los Alamos County Council, No. D-132-CV-2017-00099 (Dist. Ct., Aug. 29, 2017) and Incorporated County of Los Alamos v. Lucero, D-132-CV-2017-00114 (Dist. Ct., Oct. 5, 2017): Consolidated cases were resolved by final judgment, finding claims barred by res judicata and enjoining the sheriff from law enforcement duties while preventing the County from eliminating the sheriff's office by underfunding.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the County's failure to adequately fund and staff the sheriff's office and the assignment of law enforcement duties to the police department violated state statutes and the Open Meetings Act.
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims regarding the sheriff's office, that his petition was barred by res judicata, and that he failed to meet statutory prerequisites for his Open Meetings Act claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff had standing to challenge the County's restrictions on the duties and authority of the county sheriff.
• Whether the plaintiff's claims regarding the sheriff's office and duties were barred by res judicata.
• Whether the plaintiff's Open Meetings Act claim was properly dismissed for failure to meet statutory prerequisites.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims related to the sheriff's office duties and funding as barred by res judicata.
• The court affirmed the dismissal of the Open Meetings Act claim due to failure to meet statutory prerequisites.
• The court denied the plaintiff's post-decision motion demanding production of authority by the court.

Reasons

• YOHALEM, Judge: Agreed with the district court that the plaintiff's claims regarding the sheriff's office were barred by res judicata and that the plaintiff failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites for the Open Meetings Act claim. The court found that the plaintiff had standing based on alleged injuries particularized to candidates for the office of sheriff (paras 12-26).
  ZAMORA, Judge (specially concurring): Would affirm the district court's determination that the plaintiff lacked standing and that the case is moot, except for the Open Meetings Act claim. Disagreed with the majority's decision to address moot claims based on the possibility of the plaintiff becoming a candidate again and noted that similar issues had been addressed in Lucero (paras 29-31).