This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 INARA CEDRINS, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 31,407 9 RAMESH KUMAR SHRESTHA, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Valerie Mackie Huling, District Judge 13 Inara Cedrins 14 Chicago, IL 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 Ramesh Kumar Shrestha 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 Pro Se Appellee 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 FRY, Judge. 21 Plaintiff, pro se, appeals from the districtcourt’s order of dismissal. We issued 22 a notice of proposed summary disposition pr oposing to dismiss ba sed on a late notice 23 of appeal. Plaintiff has responded witha timely memorandum in opposition, which 24 we have duly considered. We remain unpersuaded, and we therefore affirm. 252 To properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, a party must comply with the 1 appellate rules governing the time and place inwhich to file the notice of appeal. See 2 Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc. , 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 (1991); see also 3 Trujillo v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 273, 277-78, 871 P.2d 369, 373-74 (1994) (establishing 4 that the timely filing of a no tice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to our exercise 5 of jurisdiction to hear an appeal). Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA requires the appellant 6 to file a notice of appeal in the district c ourt clerk’s office within thirty days of the 7 district court’s entry of its final judgment. Pro se litigants must comply with the rules 8 and orders of the court and will not be treat ed differently than litigants with counsel. 9 See Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84. 10 In this case, the district court entere d its final order of dismissal on June 1, 11 2011. [RP 111] Plaintiff then had thirty days from the date of entry of that order in 12 which to file the notice of appeal. See Rule 12-201(A)(2). Plaintiff did not file the 13 notice of appeal until July 6, 2011. [RP 118] The notice of appeal is therefore not 14 timely. Only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the parties will we 15 entertain an untimely appeal. See In re Estate of Newalla , 114 N.M. 290, 296, 837 16 P.2d 1373, 1379 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that “[o]ne such exceptional circumstance 17 might be reasonable reliance on a preceden t indicating that the order not timely 18 appealed was not a final, appealable order”); see also Trujillo , 117 N.M. at 278, 871 193 P.2d at 374 (holding that exceptional circ umstances are those beyond the control of 1 the parties, such as delay caused by judicial error). 2 In her memorandum in opposition, Plainti ff asserts that the appeal was timely 3 filed on June 29, 2011. [MIO 1] Plaintiff refers to two motions that she filed in this 4 Court on that date asking this Court to add a party and to substitute the district court 5 judge. However, we do not believe that the fact that Plaintiff filed unrelated motions 6 in this Court within the time frame for fili ng the notice of appeal relieved her of her 7 obligation to timely file a notice of appealin accordance with th e rules of procedure. 8 We therefore dismiss this appeal. See State v. Upchurch , 2006-NMCA-076, ¶ 5, 139 9 N.M. 739, 137 P.3d 679 (“Because there is no indication that unusual circumstances 10 justify our discretion to entertain this un timely appeal, we do not overlook this grave 11 procedural defect.”). Additionally, Plainti ff’s motion to substitute the district court 12 judge, which was held in abeyance pending a decision on appeal, is denied. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED

. 14

15 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 164 WE CONCUR: 1

2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

4 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 5