Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 INARA CEDRINS, 8 9 v. 10 GEORGE ADELO, 11 Defendant-Appellee. Plaintiff-Appellant, NO. 29,952

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 13 James A. Hall, District Judge 14 Inara Cedrins 15 Cerrillos, NM 16 Pro Se Appellant 17 George Adelo 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 Pro Se Appellee 20 21 FRY, Chief Judge. 22 Plaintiff appeals, pro se, from the district court's order dismissing her complaint MEMORANDUM OPINION

23 with prejudice. Unpersuaded that Plaintiff established error, we issued a notice of 24 proposed summary disposition, proposing summary affirmance. Plaintiff has

1 responded to our notice, which we have given due consideration. Plaintiff's response 2 does not satisfy her burden of establishing error. We, therefore, affirm. 3 On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the district court's dismissal of her complaint,

4 arguing that she presented evidence to support her claim for legal malpractice against 5 Defendant. [DS 12-13] Our notice observed that Plaintiff's docketing statement did 6 not explain what evidence she presented to support her assertions, how that evidence 7 supported her allegations of legal malpractice, what Defendant argued and presented 8 to support his assertions, and the grounds for the district court's ruling. 9 In response to our notice, Plaintiff contends that her docketing statement was

10 sufficient under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that to the extent that the record 11 does not reveal what evidence she presented, this Court should have requested that 12 evidence. [MIO 1] Plaintiff misunderstands her burden and obligations as the 13 appellant. We reiterate the warnings contained in our notice. The appellate court 14 presumes that the district court is correct, and the appellant has the burden of clearly 15 establishing error. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 111 N.M. 6, 16 8, 800 P.2d 1063, 1065 (1990). As part of this burden and to comply with our Rules 17 of Appellate Procedure, it is incumbent on the appellant to provide this Court with all 18 the facts necessary for us to decide the issues he or she raises on appeal. Rule 1219 208(D)(3), (4) NMRA. This obligation to provide us with all material facts, includes

2

1 the obligation to apprise this Court of the facts that support the district court's ruling. 2 See Thornton v. Gamble, 101 N.M. 764, 769, 688 P.2d 1268, 1273 (Ct. App. 1984). 3 These obligations in our calendaring system are particularly important because the 4 docketing statement serves as a substitute for a complete record of the proceedings 5 below. See State v. Talley, 103 N.M. 33, 39, 702 P.2d 353, 359 (Ct. App. 1985) (order 6 & order to show cause). Where an appellant fails "to provide us with a summary of 7 all the facts material to consideration of [his or her] issue, as required by [the rules], 8 we cannot grant relief on [that] ground." State v. Chamberlain, 109 N.M. 173, 176, 9 783 P.2d 483, 486 (Ct. App. 1989). Pro se litigants must comply with the rules and 10 orders of the court and will not be treated differently than litigants with counsel. See 11 Bruce v. Lester, 1999-NMCA-051,

Download CA29952.pdf

New Mexico Law