Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit • 2005

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer

425 F.3d 836 | 62 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1019 | 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20231

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case shows that pro se status does not excuse an appellant from providing developed legal arguments, authority, and record support—and abusive attacks on the court give no reason to overlook those failures.

Background

Delmer Garrett, proceeding pro se, sued a law firm and several lawyers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). He alleged that they used sham legal process to defraud and extort citizens and identified purported predicate acts involving false evidence, perjury, false instruments concerning real property, malicious prosecution, and allegedly fraudulent filings in Oklahoma state, bankruptcy, and Supreme Court proceedings.

The defendants moved to dismiss on numerous grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, lack of standing, preclusion, limitations, discovery misconduct, frivolousness, and the possibility that Garrett’s son had effectively filed the action despite restrictions on the son’s litigation. The district court summarily granted the dismissal motions.

On appeal, Garrett listed several objections to the dismissal, including objections concerning preclusion, limitations, Rooker-Feldman, discovery, and default judgment. But his briefs provided virtually no supporting legal authority, record citations, or developed reasoning. Much of the briefing instead consisted of personal and abusive attacks on the district judge. The Tenth Circuit affirmed and denied Garrett’s motion to disqualify all judges of the court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Garrett adequately briefed any basis for appellate review of the district court’s dismissal.

Holding

No. Garrett forfeited review because his appellate briefs did not comply with the basic requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.

Reasoning

A RICO plaintiff ordinarily must allege conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, including at least two qualifying predicate acts. The court noted serious doubt that several alleged state-court acts could qualify as RICO predicates. But it did not resolve the defendants’ many merits and procedural defenses because Garrett’s appellate presentation itself was inadequate.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 requires an appellant to provide the issues presented, a meaningful account of the proceedings and relevant facts with record references, a summary of the argument, and contentions supported by reasons, legal authority, and citations to the record. Merely listing errors or making generalized accusations does not preserve an issue for review.

Pro se litigants receive some leeway for imperfect legal citation, confusion about legal theories, and poor drafting. They nevertheless must comply with procedural rules, and a court may not become their advocate by developing arguments, researching the law, or searching the record on their behalf.

Garrett’s brief listed issues such as claim preclusion, limitations, Rooker-Feldman, and the denial of default judgment, but offered only conclusory assertions. His discussion did not explain the factual or legal basis for his claimed errors, cite pertinent authority, or identify supporting portions of the record. That failure forfeited appellate review.

Issue #2

Whether the court should exercise discretion to look past Garrett’s deficient briefing for a potentially meritorious argument.

Holding

No. Any willingness to search for substance in the pro se appeal was eliminated by the briefs’ scurrilous and baseless attacks on the district judge.

Reasoning

Although an appellate court may sometimes exercise discretion to consider an inadequately presented pro se argument, it was not required to do so here. Garrett’s briefs were dominated by unfounded, insulting accusations against the district judge rather than legal analysis of the ruling under review.

Courts possess inherent authority to maintain order, respect, decorum, and compliance with lawful mandates. That authority includes the power to strike abusive or scandalous filings, and precedent recognizes that liberal rules for pro se litigants cannot be used as a license to submit insulting documents directed at a judge.

The court therefore refused to overlook the lack of developed appellate argument. The combination of forfeited issues and abusive briefing warranted affirmance of the district court’s judgment.

Issue #3

Whether Garrett’s motion to disqualify all Tenth Circuit judges should be granted.

Holding

No. The court denied the motion.

Reasoning

The court denied Garrett’s request to disqualify every judge of the Tenth Circuit in the same disposition affirming the dismissal. The opinion provided no separate factual or legal analysis supporting disqualification, and Garrett’s appellate presentation supplied no adequately developed basis for that extraordinary relief.

Concurrences

Judge Porfilio

Reasoning

Judge Porfilio concurred only in the result. He did not issue a separate explanation, so the opinion identifies no alternative reasoning or different legal framework for his agreement with affirmance.