FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Deborah Davis
Walker, District Judge
Salcedo Law Betsy R. Salcedo Albuquerque, NM for Appellee
Abelino Lopez Edgewood, NM Pro se Appellant
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
Respondent-Appellant Abelino Lopez (Respondent) appeals for
the second time from numerous orders of the district court.
This Court issued a notice proposing to affirm. Respondent
filed "Memorandum Color of Law, " which we construe
as a memorandum in opposition and have duly considered.
Remaining unpersuaded, we dismiss, in part, and affirm, in
In our notice of proposed disposition, we noted numerous
orders from which Respondent seeks to appeal are non-final.
[CN 2-3] Based on the lack of finality of the custody
determination, we proposed to dismiss, in part, as to the
issues raised by the interlocutory orders Respondent cited.
[Id.] See Zuni Indian Tribe v. McKinley Cnty.
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2013-NMCA-041, ¶ 16, 300
P.3d 133 ("The general rule in New Mexico for
determining the finality of a judgment is that an order or
judgment is not considered final unless all issues of law and
fact have been determined and the case disposed of by the
trial court to the fullest extent possible." (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)). We further noted
Respondent seeks to appeal from an order of protection and
addendum to an order of protection in a related but separate
case. [CN 3] We, therefore proposed to dismiss as to any
issues related to the order of protection and the addendum.
[Id.] Finally, we noted Respondent did not raise any
issues specifically related to the attorney fees award in his
docketing statement and did not provide any argument, facts,
or authority demonstrating error in the district court's
award of attorney fees. See Headley v. Morgan Mgmt.
Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d
1076 ("We will not review unclear arguments, or guess at
what [a party's] arguments might be."). [CN 3-4]
Therefore, we proposed to affirm as to the award of attorney
fees. [CN 4-5]
"Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary
calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the
proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or
law." Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶
24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683; see also State v.
Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759
P.2d 1003 (stating that "[a] party responding to a
summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically
point out errors of law and fact[, ]" and the repetition
of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement),
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State
v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Rather
than responding to our notice of proposed disposition by
pointing out specific errors of law and fact,
Respondent's memorandum in opposition continues to make
numerous assertions regarding misconduct by the district
court and opposing counsel and violations of his and his
child's constitutional rights. [MIO 2-7] Because
Respondent has not demonstrated any error, we dismiss, in
part, and affirm, in part.
To the extent Respondent asserts he is prejudiced by his
self-represented status, we again note, "[a]lthough pro
se pleadings are viewed with tolerance, a pro se litigant is
held to the same standard of conduct and compliance with
court rules, procedures, and orders as are members of the
bar." In re Camino Real Envtl. Ctr., Inc.,
2010-NMCA-057, ¶ 21, 148 N.M. 776, 242 P.3d 343
(omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).
Finally, we note Respondent's memorandum in opposition,
as his docketing statement, makes numerous scurrilous
allegations of misconduct by the district court, its
personnel, and this Court. We caution Respondent to refrain
from such conduct in the future. Failure to do so may result
in monetary sanctions, rejection of pleadings, or both.
Accordingly, we dismiss, in part, and affirm, in part.