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 case involves an appeal by the Respondent against the district court's order, which denied his objections and entered an order of protection against him. The Respondent, representing himself, argued that his due process rights were violated because he was not present at the hearing for the order of protection. He also claimed that the court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to reschedule the hearing to accommodate his disability. These contentions were based on facts not presented to the district court or made a matter of record for review.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Contended that the district court violated his due process right by conducting the hearing for the order of protection in his absence and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not rescheduling the hearing to accommodate his disability (para 2).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the Respondent's due process rights by denying his presence at the hearing.
• Whether the district court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to reschedule the hearing to accommodate the Respondent's disability.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying the Respondent's objections and its entry of the order of protection against him (para 6).

Reasons

• Per VARGAS, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and MEDINA, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the Respondent's appeal was based on facts not presented to the district court or made a matter of record, which cannot be considered on appeal (para 2).
  The Court explained that it does not consider new evidence or make factual determinations, and therefore, could not consider the Respondent's factual representations or evidence not presented at the district court level (para 3).
  The Court noted that it is not the role of trial courts to request information from parties to help them establish their claims, and there was no error in the district court not requesting proof of phone records from the Respondent (para 4).
  The Court rejected the Respondent's claim of bias against Rastafarians by the district court, stating that adverse rulings alone do not show bias and the Respondent did not demonstrate how he preserved this claim of bias (para 5).