Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08092/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

/ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

HENRY L. McCONE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) No. 90-8092 

~[ 12 991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

SAGEBRUSH PROPERTIES, INC., a ) 

Wyoming Corporation previously ) 

doing business as Holiday Inn ) 

Convention Center; and HAROLD ) 

TUMA, ) 

(D.C. No. Misc 90-050) 

(D. Wyoming) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (a) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-8092 Document: 010110099930 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 1 
This case concerns issues arising out of the discharge of 

plaintiff by defendants from his position as food services 

manager. The legality of this discharge has been fully litigated 

in a jury trial in Civil Case No. C85-0376-B, where the jury found 

against the plaintiff. Judgment for the defendants was 

subsequently affirmed by this court on December 14, 1989, in 

No. 88-2795. 

Plaintiff now attempts to relitigate certain other theories 

that he failed to raise at trial. Specifically, he challenges the 

constitutionality of Wyo. Stat.§ 27-3-406(c) (Cum. Supp. 1990), 

its application to this case, the impartiality of the district 

court judge at trial, and certain delays by the defendants and the 

district court in the present action. 

Plaintiff is now barred by res judicata from raising new 

legal theories concerning his dismissal. The plaintiff had his 

day in court and cannot now claim that issues must be reconsidered 

because certain legal theories were not considered at trial. The 

plaintiff has the burden of making all possible arguments at 

trial, and if he fails to make an argument, he waives it. 

The district court properly held that Civil Case No. 

C85-0376-B is res judicata in the present case, and therefore also 

properly dismissed plaintiff's other motions. 

to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

Appellants motion 

Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). The mandate sh~ll issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-8092 Document: 010110099930 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 2