Opinion ID: 2773552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Arguments Rejected in the Prior Appeal

Text: Mr. Tadlock raises four other arguments: 1. The Federal Aviation Administration retaliated by asking him to submit medical records after he had filed the EEOC charge. 2. The federal government submitted false statements, including perjured testimony. 3. There was evidence of temporal proximity between the adverse actions and the EEOC charge, which should have been enough to defeat summary judgment. 4. He was constructively discharged when deemed “disqualified” by the FAA’s doctor. These arguments were considered and rejected in the prior appeal.3 With our decision affirming the summary judgment ruling, the district court appropriately declined to allow Mr. Tadlock to allow relitigation of these arguments. See Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 577 (10th Cir. 1996); Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). 3 See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 3, 7, Tadlock v. LaHood, 550 F. App’x 541 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (arguing that Troy Price knowingly submitted false testimony); id. at 7 (arguing that Dr. Wilson and his staff committed perjury); id. at 2-3 (arguing temporal proximity and constructive discharge); id. at 6-7 (arguing retaliation through a request for medical records). -6- II. Striking of the Amended Complaints and Amended Responses to the Summary Judgment Motion After Mr. Tadlock moved for vacatur of the award of summary judgment, he filed two amended complaints and two amended responses to the summary judgment motion. The court struck these documents based on mootness, viewing  the first round of amendments moot when Mr. Tadlock filed a second round of amendments and  the second round of amendments moot in light of the decision to decline vacatur of the judgment. It is unclear whether Mr. Tadlock is intending to appeal the order striking the two amendments to the complaint and the response to the summary judgment motion.4 If he is, however, he has not provided any ground for reversal. We again apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 1994). Applying this standard, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when it struck the documents. When striking the documents, the district court had already declined to vacate the summary judgment ruling. Once the court declined to vacate the summary judgment ruling, it would have been too late for Mr. Tadlock to file an amended complaint or an amended response to the summary judgment motion. Thus, we would decline to reverse 4 In the notice of appeal, Mr. Tadlock appealed all orders issued on March 31, 2014. The district court’s order striking the two amended complaints and two amended response briefs was filed on March 31, 2014. -7- in the event that Mr. Tadlock had intended to appeal the striking of his amended complaints and amended responses to the summary judgment motion.