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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 11, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EVERETT HOUCK,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 06-6096

v. W. D. Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC

SCHOOLS; OKLAHOMA CITY

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

TEACHERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. CIV-05-1246-HE)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit

Judges.

On October 27, 2005, Everett Houck, a former teacher in Oklahoma City,

filed a pro se complaint, and later an amended complaint, in the United States

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Oklahoma City
-2-

Public Schools, Oklahoma City American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and four

individuals, Bob Moore, Tim Bailey, Linda Scott, and Ed Allen. The district

court liberally construed the complaints to raise the following claims: (1) a claim

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) a breach-of-contract claim;

and (3) a claim of unfair representation against the AFT. Mr. Houck also filed a

motion to compel discovery “to get information to clarify my complaint in this

case.” R. Doc. 20. 

The district court denied Mr. Houck’s motion to compel because it was

unnecessary and did not comply with federal and local rules. It dismissed the

individually named defendants because the complaints contained no allegations

against them. It dismissed the ADA claim as untimely because it was “filed more

than a year after the right to sue notice was mailed [by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission].” R. Doc. 24 at 2. The court noted that it lacked

diversity jurisdiction and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

unfair-representation and breach-of-contract claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3),

after determining that the former claim did not create federal-question jurisdiction

because AFT members are employees of the Oklahoma City Public Schools,

which is not an “employer” under the National Labor Relations Act. See Aramark

Corp. v. NLRB, 179 F.3d 872, 874 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc); Strasburger v. Bd.

of Educ., Hardin County Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1, 143 F.3d 351, 359-60 (7th

Cir. 1998).
-3-

On appeal Mr. Houck argues only that his motion to compel discovery

should have been granted and that “[t]he facts were not in evidence due to failure

to answer discovery.” Aplt. Br. at 4. He also states, “I feel the judge was biased

because I do not have an attorney.” Id. He has not explained, however, how the

district court’s ruling on the discovery motion was incorrect, or how it might have

changed the outcome. See Soma Med. Int’l v. Standard Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d

1292, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999) (we review denial of a motion for discovery for

abuse of discretion). Nor does he point to anything to show that the district court

was biased against him. See Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1305 (10th Cir.

1997) (“adverse rulings cannot in themselves form the appropriate grounds for

disqualification” of a judge for bias (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY the motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge