This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 4 v. No. 33,797 5 LAURA JACKSON, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 8 Raymond l. Romero, District Judge 9 Eileen Riordan, City Attorney 10 City of Carlsbad 11 Carlsbad, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Laura Jackson 14 El Paso, TX 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 SUTIN, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant Laura Jackson appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her 1 appeal from her municipal court conviction, which was filed in the district court on 2 March 17, 2014. [RP 327] Unpersuaded by Defendant’s docketing statement, we 3 entered a notice of proposed summary dis position, proposing to affirm. Defendant 4 subsequently filed two additional documents in this Court within the time frame for 5 filing a memorandum in opposition. We c onstrue these documents as Defendant’s 6 memorandum in opposition. We remainunpersuaded and therefore affirm. 7 {2} In our notice, we explained that becauseDefendant’s filings in this Court are 8 largely unintelligible, it was difficult to determine what error or errors she was 9 claiming that the district court made. N onetheless, we reviewed Defendant’s filings 10 to the best of our ability and construed her appeal to be a challenge to the propriety 11 of the district court’s dismissal of her appeal. See Clayton v. Trotter , 1990-NMCA12 078, ¶¶ 12-17, 110 N.M. 369, 796 P. 2d 262 (explaining that this Court will review pro 13 se arguments to the best of its ability, but cannot respond to unintelligible arguments) 14 We proposed to conclude that the distri ct court complied with the requirements of 15 Rule 5-828 NMRA and did not otherwis e abuse its discretion in dismissing 16 Defendant’s case. 17 {3} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, likeher other filings in this Court, 18 seeks vague relief relating toher dog, George Birthmark. Defendant states that 193 George has a generally gentle disposition and never hurt anyone. Defendant also sets 1 forth a list of various offenses allegedl y perpetrated against her by individuals in 2 Carlsbad, New Mexico. Further, Defendant asks this Court to “transfer” her case to 3 El Paso, Texas, where she now resides. While we commend Defendant for her efforts 4 in this case, her memorandum in opposition is not at all responsive to the analysis set 5 forth in our notice. Accordingly, on the basis of our proposed analysis, we hold that 6 the district court did not abuse its discre tion in dismissing Defendant’s case pursuant 7 to Rule 5-828. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 8 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly he ld that, in summary calendar cases, the 9 burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in 10 fact or law.”); see also Newsome v. Farer , 1985-NMSC-096, ¶ 18, 103 N.M. 415, 708 11 P.2d 327 (“Although pro se pleadings are view ed with tolerance, a pro se litigant, 12 having chosen to represent himself, is he ld to the same standard of conduct and 13 compliance with court rules, procedures, and orders as are members of the bar.” 14 (citation omitted)). 15 {4} Based on the foregoing and the analysis in our notice of proposed summary 16 disposition, we affirm the district court. 17 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 18

__________________________________ 19 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 204 WE CONCUR: 1

_______________________________ 2 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3

_______________________________ 4 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 5