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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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
MARIO MINJARES, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 28,992 9 MANUEL ROMERO, GARY MIER, 10 ROBERT EASTMAN, MIKE VIGIL, 11 CHARLES MARTINEZ, JOHN DOE(S), 12 and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 13 Defendants-Appellees. 14

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 15 James A. Hall, District Judge 16 Mario Minjares 17 Juarez, Mexico 18 Pro Se Appellant 19
James R.D. Brewster 20 Santa Fe, NM 21 for Appellees Romero, Mier, Eastman, Vigil, Martinez 22 Gary K. King, Attorney General 23 Santa Fe, NM 242 for Appellee Department of Corrections 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 CASTILLO, Judge. 3 On February 26, 1999, Plai ntiff Mario Minjares, pro se (Plaintiff) filed a 4 complaint against Defendants, who are pris on guards at the New Mexico Penitentiary, 5 for violation of civil rights and assault and battery that Plaintiff asserts he suffered 6 while in prison in New Mexico. [RP 1] The case was dismissed for various reasons 7 on the merits on August 22, 2006. [RP 529] Pl aintiff filed a motion to reinstate the 8 case on October 4, 2006. [RP 545] Defendants responded to the motion on October 9 16, 2006. [RP 555] 10 On May 2, 2008, District Court Judge James A. Hall noted that the motion for 11 reinstatement had never beenruled upon, and he entered an order denying the motion 12 for reinstatement and closed the case file. [RP 569] Plaintiff filed the notice of appeal 13 from the May 2, 2008 order more than thirty days later, on June 16, 2008. [RP 570] 14 Plaintiff was deported to Mexico in 2005 after he served the term in the New Mexico 15 Penitentiary. Plaintiff certified that he mailed the notice of appeal on June 11, 2008. 16 [RP 571] 17 This Court’s calendar notice filed on December 18, 2008, proposed to dismiss 18 the appeal for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Plaintiff did not file a timely 19 memorandum in opposition, and this Court dismissed the appeal by memorandum 203 opinion on March 18, 2009. Mandate was issued on April 24, 2009. Plaintiff claimed 1 that he did not receive the calendar noti ce of proposed disposition and only received 2 this Court’s opinion and mandate on September 14, 2009. Plaintiff filed a motion for 3 relief of judgment and a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum in 4 opposition to this Court’s December 18, 2008 calendar notice. By order of this Court, 5 the opinion and mandate were withdrawn, and Plaintiff filed a response to the 6 December 18, 2008 calendar notice. We have duly considered Plaintiff’s 7 memorandum in opposition. Unpersuaded, however, we dismiss the appeal for failure 8 to file a timely notice of appeal. 9 DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff’s explanation for filing a late no tice of appeal does not persuade us that 11 the proposed dismissal of the appeal in the calendar notice was incorrect or 12 inappropriate. Plaintiff relies on Rule 12-201(D) NMRA. This Rule states in 13 applicable part, 14 If a party timely files a motion pur suant to Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, 15 Paragraph B of Rule 1-050 NMRA, Paragraph D of Rule 1-052 NMRA, 16 or Rule 1-059 NMRA, the full time prescribed in this rule for the filing 17 of the notice of appeal shall commen ce to run and be computed from the 18 entry of an order expressly disposing of the motion. 19 Plaintiff argues that his motion for rein statement filed on Oc tober 4, 2006, [RP 545] 20 and Defendants’ response to the motion f iled on January 5, 2007, [RP 559] are post21 trial motions that extended the time for filing the notice of appeal. The district court’s 22 order, filed on May 2, 2008, [RP 565], however, is a final ruling denying Plaintiff’s 234 October 6, 2006 post-trial motion to reinstate the case. Because Plaintiff filed the 1 notice of appeal on June 16, 2008, more than thirty days after the order was filed, the 2 appeal, is untimely pursuant to Rule 12-201(D). [RP 566] 3 To the extent that Plaintiff argues in the memorandum that the district court’s 4 ruling was really not a ruling on the merits of his contentions and, therefore, 5 apparently according to Plaintiff, the ruli ng never happened or isvoid and the notice 6 of appeal is not late, we are not persuade d. The order denied Plaintiff’s motion to 7 reinstate the case, because the arguments Plaintiff raised were considered by the 8 district court in its prior ruling on the merits. [RP 565] 9 As we stated in the calendar notice, compliance with the notice of appeal time 10 and place requirements are mandatory prec onditions to the exercise of appellate 11 jurisdiction. See Govich v. North Am. Sys., Inc. , 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 12 (1991). As our Supreme Court has observe d, “[o]nly the most unusual circumstances 13 beyond the control of the parties—such as error on the part of the court—will warrant 14 overlooking procedural defects.” Trujillo v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 273, 278, 871 P.2d 15 369, 374 (1994). Plaintiff’s memorandum has not persuaded us that such 16 circumstances exist in this case. Bruce v. Lester, 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 17 301, 980 P.2d 84 (discussing that pro se litigantsmust comply with the rules of the 18 court and will not be treated differently from litigants with counsel); see also 19 Newsome v. Farer, 103 N.M. 415, 419, 708 P.2d 327, 331 (1985) (holding that pro se 20 litigants are held to the “same standard of conduct and compliance with court rules, 21 procedures, and orders as are members of the bar”). 225 CONCLUSION 1 We dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

________________________________ 4 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6

________________________________ 7 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 8

________________________________ 9 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 10