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

Heading: New Allegations

Text: On appeal, Mr. Tadlock argues in part that the district court and Department of Justice committed misconduct. This argument is invalid for two reasons: (1) it was not raised in district court, and (2) it is unsupported. We need not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Valdez v. Squier, 676 F.3d 935, 950 (10th Cir. 2012). In part because Mr. Tadlock did not raise this argument in district court, we decline to reverse on this ground. But, reversal would be inappropriate anyway because Mr. Tadlock has not provided any evidence of misconduct by the district court or the Department of Justice. -3- Mr. Tadlock makes four strong allegations against the district court: 1. The record contained evidence of illegal activity by the Department of Justice, and the district court removed that document from the record.2 2. The district court deleted all other evidence of governmental wrongdoing from the record. 3. The district court did not allow truth into the record. 4. The district judge was partial. Both in district court and on appeal, Mr. Tadlock failed to provide any evidence of these strong allegations. The same is true of Mr. Tadlock’s allegations against the Department of Justice. He states that the Department of Justice controls the courts and was a coconspirator. But, Mr. Tadlock has presented no evidence of these allegations. Mr. Tadlock alleges not only conspiratorial misconduct, but also overly aggressive tactics in the litigation. For example, he accuses the Department of Justice of a conflict of interest that hindered his ability to obtain a jury trial. The Justice Department unquestionably had an interest adverse to Mr. Tadlock because it represented the party (the Department of Transportation) that he sued. 28 U.S.C. § 519. As counsel for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Justice (like any other counsel) had the 2 Mr. Tadlock identified the document as “Defense Exhibit 10.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 5 (July 24, 2014). This exhibit was a transcript of the EEOC hearing. The transcript continues to appear in the district court’s docket sheet and is electronically accessible through the district court’s “Pacer” system. See https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/doc1/07912994940. -4- right to make motions. Thus, Mr. Tadlock has not justified relief under Rule 60(b) based on the Justice Department’s litigation tactics.