Opinion ID: 2804186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Incorporation of Arguments

Text: As an initial matter, in several places in Pouyeh’s initial and reply briefs, he purports to incorporate arguments raised in other documents. For example, he purports to incorporate portions of his Third Amended Complaint and arguments made in a motion he filed in this Court to have the standard for deciding motions to dismiss set forth in Iqbal1 and Twombly2 declared unconstitutional. In his reply brief, he purports to incorporate all arguments he plans to present in his opening and reply briefs in a different appeal pending before this court. “[A]lthough we are to give liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants, we nevertheless have required them to conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Moreover, we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2008). 2 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2006). 8 Case: 14-13704 Date Filed: 05/28/2015 Page: 9 of 23 We have explained that an appellant may not incorporate by reference arguments made elsewhere, including before the district judge, because “[m]ere citation to documents [filed in district court] does not meet the[] requirements” set forth in the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr S.A., 377 F.3d 1164, 1167 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004). Pouyeh’s purported adoption of the briefs from his other appeal is insufficient, because he cannot raise an issue for the first time in a reply brief. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. We will not consider any argument raised in his other appeal that also is not raised in his initial brief in this appeal. See id. His purported incorporation by reference of his pleadings in district court similarly fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Albra, 490 F.3d at 829; Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V., 377 F.3d at 1167 n.4. Finally, his purported adoption of his motion to have Iqbal and Twombly deemed unconstitutional is ineffective, because a panel of this court has already denied that motion.