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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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

RICARDO S. GIRON, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8 v. No. 30,253 9 JAN GOODWIN, an individual, 10 predicate actor, RICK HOMANS, 11 an individual, predicate actor, 12 RICHARD GALEWALER, an 13 individual, predicate actor, Twenty-Five 14 John Does, and Twenty-Five Jane Does, 15 together, comprising a racketeering enterprise. 16 Defendants-Appellees. 17 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 18 Albert Mitchell, District Judge 19 Ricardo S. Giron 20 Las Vegas, NM 21 Pro Se Appellant 22 Beall & Biehler 23 Mary T. Torres 24 Albuquerque, NM 25 for Appellees 26MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 SUTIN, Judge. 2 Plaintiff filed a pro se civil enforcement action alleging that employees of the 3 New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue (the Department) violated the 4 Racketeering Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 30-42-1 to -6 (1980, as amended through 5 2009). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim, failure 6 to exhaust administrative remedies, and on sovereign immunity grounds [RP 432], 7 following a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants. [RP 228-36] Plaintiff appeals 8 from this order. [RP 436-37] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. 9 Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition and Defendant s have filed a 10 memorandum in support. We have consid ered the parties’ arguments, and as we 11 remain unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments in support of reversal, we affirm. 12 In this Court’s calendar notice, we notedthat this court presumes that the 13 district court is correct and that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate 14 that the lower court erred. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc. , 111 15 N.M. 6, 8, 800 P.2d 1063, 1065 (1990); see also Allen v. Amoco Prod. Co. , 114 N.M. 16 18, 22, 833 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that it is the appellant’s burden 17 to demonstrate error). We pointed out th at the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s 18 action on grounds that Plaintiff had failed to adequately state a claim, failed to exhaust 19 administrative remedies, and that the State possessed immunity from Plaintiff’s suit. 202 We also noted that Plaintiff had not addre ssed any of these bases for dismissal in his 1 docketing statement. We therefore proposed to affirm because Plaintiff had failed to 2 advance any argument on appeal that demonstrated error in the district court’s ruling. 3 See, e.g. , Newsome v. Farer , 103 N.M. 415, 419, 708 P.2d 327, 331 (1985) (holding 4 that pro se litigants are held to the “s ame standard of conduct and compliance with 5 court rules, procedures, and orders as are members of the bar”). 6 In his memorandum in opposition, Plaintiff addressed the three grounds on 7 which his case was dismissed arguing: (1) the New Mexi co Racketeering Act 8 provides for a private right of action [MIO 1- 2]; (2) he was not re quired to exhaust his 9 administrative remedies because he is not a taxpayer [MIO 2] ; and (3) sovereign 10 immunity does not apply because Plaintiff sued individual members of the Department 11 of Taxation and Revenue and not the State of New Mexico [MIO 3]. 12 To the extent Plaintiff argues that s overeign immunity doe s not apply because 13 he sued individual members of the Department and not the State of New Mexico, we 14 are unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s argument. Sovereign immunity applies to both the 15 State and to the State’s employees acting within the scope of duty. See NMSA 1978, 16 § 41-4-4(A) (2001). Furthermore, Plainti ff has not provided this Court with any 17 authority to support his argument. As a result, this Court presumes that no such 18 authority exists. See In re Adoption of Doe , 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 193 (1984) (stating that where a party cites no authority to support an argument, the 1 appellate courts may assume no such authority exists). Because Plaintiff has failed 2 to demonstrate that the district court in correctly concluded that sovereign immunity 3 barred Plaintiff’s suit, we do not addre ss Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the 4 alternative bases supporting the district court’s order. 5 Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff continue s to argue that he was entitled to a jury 6 trial, we informed Plaintiff in our proposed disposition that he was not entitled to a 7 jury trial unless he could demonstrate error in the distri ct court’s ruling. Because we 8 conclude Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate su ch error, we affirm the district court’s 9 dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. 10 For the reasons stated in this opinion and in this Court’s notice of proposed 11 disposition, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

_______________________________ 17 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 18

_______________________________ 19 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 20