Opinion ID: 177721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assertions of Fact

Text: Ms. Rose claims dismissal was improper because the court failed to construe as true the facts alleged in the complaint, considered matters outside the complaint, and failed to hold a hearing. Ms. Rose has not identified any facts she asserts the district court ignored, but instead has supplied only arguments and conclusory allegations. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 27-30. She contends that her district court filing, which she refers to as her “Twombly chart,” e.g., id. at 28, demonstrated that her factual assertions were sufficient to resist dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). But the “Twombly chart,” like Ms. Rose’s appellate briefs, contains primarily conclusory statements and arguments. Aplt. Addendum at 108-11; 118-26. “[W]e need not accept [Ms. Rose’s] conclusory allegations as true.” S. Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Mgmt., 161 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 1998); accord Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Moreover, “counsel may not overcome pleading deficiencies with arguments.” Bauchman ex. rel Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 550 (10th Cir. 1997). Ms. Rose’s claim that the district court improperly considered matters outside the complaint is based on the court’s reference to an earlier federal court case Ms. Rose filed, which was dismissed. 3 This was not a fact pertaining to the merits of the case, however, and reference to it was merely background 3 Ms. Rose also objects to the district court’s reference to attorney-grievance complaint against her. As this forms the basis of her lawsuit, reference to the complaint was not error. -6- information not integral to the court’s analysis or conclusion. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting dismissal without a hearing where Ms. Rose does not assert that she requested one, and where the contested matters were legal in nature. See Shaw v. AAA Eng’rg & Drafting, Inc., 213 F.3d 538, 545 (10th Cir. 2000). Ms. Rose’s reliance on In re Green, 369 U.S. 689, 692-93 (1962), to support her argument that a hearing was required is misplaced. See, e.g., Aplt. Reply Br. at 8. In re Green concerned the due-process hearing requirement for an attorney who “ha[d] been held in contempt of a state court and sentenced to jail and fined.” In re Green, 369 U.S. at 689, 693. Nothing in this case suggests that Ms. Rose has been threatened with contempt of any court.