Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-02230/USCOURTS-ca10-04-02230-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gale A. Norton
Appellee
Melvin R. Ortiz
Appellant
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 19 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

MELVIN R. ORTIZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the 

Interior; UNITED ST ATES 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 04-2230 

(D.C. No. CIV-97-738-JC/LFG) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-2230 Document: 010110642410 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 1
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment entered after a two-day bench 

trial on his Title VII claims alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation 

by his former employer, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 

of Interior. The district court concluded that plaintiff, who was unable to obtain 

extended emergency leave when facing an imminent term of incarceration and 

was ultimately terminated, failed to prove by a preponderance that the actions 

complained of were the result of discriminatory or retaliatory motive. Ordinarily, 

we would review the district court's factual findings on the trial record for clear 

error and review de novo the legal conclusions reached based on those findings. 

See Keys Youth Servs., Inc. v. City of Olathe, 248 F.3d 1267, 1274 (10th Cir. 

2001 ). But here plaintiff has failed to provide the trial transcript on which this 

review would be premised. As explained below, this omission requires us to 

affirm what is, in effect, an unreviewable determination. 

It is the appellant's duty to ensure that we are provided with all transcripts 

required for "a complete and accurate record of the proceedings related to the 

issues on appeal." 10th Cir. R. 10.l(A)(l); see Fed. R. App. P. l0(b); King v. 

Unocal Corp., 58 F.3d 586, 587-88 (10th Cir. 1995). While some aspects of 

record preparation, such as designating and forwarding documents in the case file, 

are handled for pro se litigants by the district clerk, I 0th Cir. R. I 0.2(C), nothing 

in the rules relieves a pro se appellant of the duty to order and pay for transcripts 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-2230 Document: 010110642410 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 2
required in support of the issues raised on appeal. And, as this court has 

emphasized numerous times, a party's pro se status does not as a general matter 

excuse noncompliance with basic rules of procedure binding on all litigants. 

Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F .3d 1196, 1199 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2002); 

Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994); Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 

915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992). 

When, as here, the issues raised by the appellant turn on or relate to the 

evidence presented at trial, the trial transcript is indispensable to our informed 

appellate review.' See, e.g., Scheufler v. Gen. Host Corp., 126 F.3d 1261, 

1268-69 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Vasquez, 985 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir. 

1993); Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 969 F.2d 977, 979-80 (10th Cir. 1992). Thus, 

once again, as "[t]his court has held 'on a number of occasions and in a variety of 

settings[,] ... the lack of a required transcript leaves us with no alternative but to 

affirm."' Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1221, 

There is one facially fact-independent issue raised that may not entail any 

resort to the evidentiary record. Plaintiff objects that the district court "fail[ ed] to 

address the 'retaliation issue."' Aplt. Op. Br., Attachment to attached Pro Se 

Docketing Statement, at 5. If this were substantiated solely by reference to the 

district court's decision, we could order a remand for further proceedings on the 

neglected issue without the need to consult the trial transcript. But the objection 

is refuted by the second and fourth conclusions of law on page six of the district 

court's decision, in which the court acknowledges the retaliation claim, sets out 

the governing standard, and concludes that plaintiff failed to meet his burden ( an 

evidentiary conclusion that we must accept for the reasons stated above). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-2230 Document: 010110642410 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 3
1238 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting McGinnis v. Gustafson, 978 F.2d 1199, 1201 (10th 

Cir. 1992)). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. Henry 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-2230 Document: 010110642410 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 4