Lujan v. New Mexico State Police Bd.

• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PAYNE; SOSA; SOSA
• Citation: Lujan v. New Mexico State Police Bd., 667 P.2d 456, 100 N.M. 149, 1983 NMSC 62 (N.M. 1983)
• Decision Date: 04 August 1983
• Docket Number: No. 14456,14456
• Parties: George F. LUJAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE BOARD, Respondent-Appellee.

Page 456

667 P.2d 456

100 N.M. 149

George F. LUJAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE BOARD, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14456.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Aug. 4, 1983.

[100 NM 149] David R. Sierra, Sarah M. Singleton, Santa Fe, for petitioner-appellant.

Paul G. Bardacke, Atty. Gen., Robert D. Gardenhire, Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Cassell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee.

OPINION

PAYNE, Chief Justice.

George Lujan was terminated by the New Mexico State Police from his job as a civilian supply agent. The New Mexico Mexico State Police Board upheld Lujan's termination, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, Lujan claims he was denied procedural due process because: (1) the Chairman of the State Police Board refused to disqualify himself against claims of bias and partiality; and (2) Assistant Attorneys General represented both the Board and the Police Chief. We affirm.

Prior to the termination hearing, Lujan moved to disqualify Mahlon Love, Chairman of the State Police Board, alleging that he was biased and incapable of rendering an impartial decision. Lujan based his motion upon two alleged "confrontations" he had with Love within the preceding two years. Lujan's motion was denied on the ground that there was no good cause for disqualification. Although Love presided at the hearing, he did not participate in the vote that upheld Lujan's termination.

Lujan did not argue that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence nor did he attack it on the merits. A challenge of a decision on pure procedural grounds as Lujan has done in this case is moot, unless the procedural defects violate some constitutional or statutory prohibition. Accord United States v. Pratt, 645 F.2d 89 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 881, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981) (noting that unless procedural delays in obtaining transcripts rise to the level of due process violation, no affordable remedies are available); Micelli v. LeFevre, 444 F.Supp. 1187 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (holding that statutory requirements for filing notice of appeal cannot be attacked on due process grounds in the absence of some showing that the failure to file resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel or improper conduct by the State); cf. Shaw v. Stone, 506 F.Supp. 571 (M.D.Ga.1981), aff'd, 695 F.2d 528 (11th Cir.1983) (absence of the Chief Justice from oral argument does not create an error of constitutional due process proportions).

1) Lujan contends that Love's failure to disqualify himself denied him a fair hearing because the two alleged "confrontations" he had with Love amounted to at least the "appearance of bias" within the meaning of NMSA 1978, Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (Rep.Pamp.1981 and Supp.1982). He relies on Reid v. New Mexico Bd. of Examiners, 92 N.M. 414, 589 P.2d 198 (1979).

In Reid, we reversed a Board of Examiners' decision revoking an optometrist's license to practice, because the Board failed to disqualify one of its members on the basis of bias. Although he admitted telling the optometrist's secretary that the optometrist would be losing his job, the Board member in Reid thought he could render a fair and impartial decision. The test we set forth in Reid was whether there is "any indication of a possible temptation to an average man sitting as a judge to try the case with bias for or against any issue presented to him." Id. at 416, 589 P.2d at 200; see generally Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973).

The two incidents relied upon by Lujan to establish bias or an indication of possible temptation to try the case with bias differ substantially from the incident in Reid. The first incident occurred in September of 1979, when Love went to the supply room to obtain supplies from Lujan. Lujan testified at trial that he "made the transfer out, and * * * told [Love] that [the order] had to be approved by Captain Pickett." Upon Captain Pickett's approval, Lujan gave Love the requested items. The second incident occurred in September of 1980, when Love requisitioned a cap shield from the supply room. Lujan informed Love that he could not fill his order because Love was not on the list of personnel approved to requisition supplies, whereupon Love obtained approval for his order from Larry Montoya, another employee who was on the approved list. While Lujan was getting the cap shield, Love told Montoya, "I guess George [Lujan] doesn't understand. The Chief has told him thirteen or fourteen different times that I am the boss."

In our view, both incidents fall far short of showing a possible temptation to try the case with bias on the part of Love. Since the first incident merely indicates a casual over-the-counter transaction between two people, it lacks the negative confrontation alleged by Lujan. Although in the second incident Lujan believes he "upset" Love, we search the record in vain for any conduct or harsh language on the part of Love that would indicate a "possible temptation of bias." In fact, the record shows that aside from these minor incidents both parties got along well.

2. Lujan next contends that he was denied due process because both the Board and the Police Chief were represented by Assistant Attorneys General. We disagree.

Lujan neither alerted the Board or the district court of any conflicts or prejudice as a result of the nature of his representation, nor did he move to disqualify adverse counsel during the initial stage of the proceeding. On the contrary, he stipulated that the Police Chief's attorney neither counseled nor advised the Board on any matter pertaining to his termination. Moreover, we note that counsel for the Police Chief is paid by the New Mexico State Police, and his office is at the State Police complex in Santa Fe. In contrast, counsel for the Board is paid by the State Attorney General, and does not maintain an office at the Santa Fe State Police complex.

We...