This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 NANCY LEWIS and BROWN DOG, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 29,582 9 STATE OF NEW MEXICO 10 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 11 ANTOINETTE CORDOVA 12 COUNTY DIRECTOR, 13 Defendants-Appellees. 14

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY 15 Sheri A. Raphelson, District Judge 16 Nancy Lewis 17 Espanola, NM 18 Pro Se Appellant 19 Long, Pound & Komer, P.A. 20 Little V. West 21 Santa, NM 22 for Appellees 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION 242 WECHSLER, Judge. 1 Appellant appeals, pro se, from the district court order dismissing her 2 complaint. This Court issu ed a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Appellant has 3 filed a memorandum in opposition and a motion to amend the docketing statement. 4 Appellees have filed a re sponse to Appellant’s moti on to amend the docketing 5 statement. Having considered the partie s’ arguments, we deny Appellant’s motion to 6 amend her docketing statement and affirm the district court order dismissing her 7 complaint. 8 DISCUSSION 9 District Court’s Dismissal of Appellant’s Complaint 10 In this Court’s calendar notice we pro posed to affirm the district court’s 11 decision dismissing Appellant’s complaint on the grounds that (1) to the extent 12 Appellant’s complaint was an appeal from an administrative order, it was untimely, 13 [CN 2-3] and (2) to the ex tent Appellant was initiating litigation based on the district 14 court’s original jurisdiction, Appellant had failed to state a claim for relief. [CN 3-5] 15 In response, Appellant does not contest this Court’s proposal that, to the extent her 16 complaint was an appeal, it was untimely. [Appellant’s motion to amend the D.S. 17 (hereafter, ADS) 2] Instead, Appellant c ontends that dismissal of her complaint 183 alleging claims of fraud, abuse, and negligence, was error. [ADS 2] 1 As we pointed out in our calendar noti ce, Appellant did not plead the necessary 2 requirements for fraud and cite d no legal authority on appealindicating that the facts 3 of the case constitute fraud and that di smissal was inappropriate. [CN 4-5] See Rule 4 1-009(B) NMRA (“In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances 5 constituting fraud or mistake shall bestated with particularity.”); see also In re 6 Adoption of Doe , 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984) (stating that an 7 appellate court will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the 8 issue). We further noted that, to the ex tent Appellant claimed negligence and abuse, 9 Appellant had not informed this Court how her complaint satisfied the pleading 10 requirements for a claim of negligence, see UJI 13-1601 NMRA, and Appellant had 11 not identified the elements of abuse oralleged how they were satisfied. See Rule 1- 12 008(A) NMRA (providing that general rules of pleading require a pleading to include 13 “a short and plain statement of the clai m showing that the pleader is entitled to 14 relief”). [CN 5] We further proposed to presume that, in the absence of such a 15 demonstration, the district court was correct. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & 16 Fabricating, Inc. , 111 N.M. 6, 8, 800 P.2d 1063, 1065 (1990). [CN 5] 17 In response, Appellant still has not pointed out how her allegations satisfy the 184 requirements for alleging a claim of fraud, negligence, or abuse. [ADS 2-9] 1 Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has not satisfied her burden of 2 demonstrating error in this Court’s proposed disposition, see Hennessy v. Duryea , 3 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 4 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 5 disposition to clearly point out errors in f act or law.”), or error on the part of the 6 district court, see Farmers, Inc. , 111 N.M. at 8, 800 P.2d at 1065 (“The presumption 7 upon review favors the correctness of the trial court’s actions . Appellant must 8 affirmatively demonstrate its assertion of error.”). To the extent Appellant argues that 9 pro se litigants should be provided the opportunity to file a responsive pleading to a 10 motion to dismiss, rather than the complaint being dismissed outright [MIO 3-4 (citing 11 the opinion of Justice Thurgood Marshall)], we note that Appellant was provided the 12 opportunity to respond to Appellees’ motion to dismiss in the district court [RP 41- 13 45]; thus, we are unpersuaded. 14 Motion to Amend the Docketing Statement 15 Appellant filed a motion to amend her docketing statement. The essential 16 requirements to show good cause for our allo wance of an amendment to an appellant’s 17 docketing statement are: (1) that the motion be timely, (2) that the new issue sought 185 to be raised was either (a) properly preserved below or (b) allowed to be raised for the 1 first time on appeal, and (3) that the issues raised are viable. See State v. Moore , 109 2 N.M. 119, 129, 782 P.2d 91, 101 (Ct. App. 1989), overruled on other grounds by State 3 v. Salgado , 112 N.M. 537, 538, 817 P.2d 730, 731 (C t. App. 1991). As Appellees 4 point out, Appellant has not complied with these requirements for demonstrating good 5 cause for an allowance of an amendment toher docketing statement. Thus, to the 6 extent Appellant’s proposed amended doc keting statement raises new issues, 7 Appellant’s motion to amend is denied. We note, however, that it is unclear what 8 additional arguments Appellant has raised. Ultimately, it is unnecessary for this Court 9 to decipher which issues are newly raised and which issues were raised in Appellant’s 10 docketing statement since we have considered the arguments contained in Appellant’s 11 proposed amended docketing statement and, for the reasons stated above, conclude 12 that none of the issues raised is viable. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, 15 we affirm the district court order dismissi ng Appellant’s complaint. We further deny 16 Appellant’s motion to amend her docketing statement to the extent it raises new 17 issues. 186 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

_______________________________ 2 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

______________________________ 5 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 6

______________________________ 7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 8