Opinion ID: 2797838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: nixon’s deficient opening brief on appeal

Text: It is unfortunately commonplace that an issue on appeal is waived because it is not adequately developed in a party’s brief. This, however, is a (fortunately rare) case in which no pertinent issue is adequately developed. 5 Nixon’s opening brief does almost nothing to advance his cause. The first 11 of its 18 pages are devoted to the procedural background of the case and allegations in his complaint, much of which is of no apparent relevance to the appeal.1 Most notable is the repeated reference to the purported motive for Defendants’ actions against him—not his speech (which is never mentioned as the motive) but their “fear of the publicity and political reaction to the publicity which was intense.” Aplt. Br. at 8. That left only seven pages of the opening brief to accomplish the essential task of showing how the district court had erred in the three rulings that underlay its dismissal of Nixon’s stigma-plus due-process claim (dismissed because he had not shown that the process afforded him by the City was deficient) and his First Amendment retaliation claim (dismissed because (1) he had not alleged facts showing that his comments on a proposed change in City hearing procedures motivated any retaliatory action and (2) he had not shown that any other statements were on a matter of public concern). Yet the brief proceeds to devote four of those seven pages as follows: one page to the assertion that Nixon’s discipline was a “response to . . . media and political pressure,” id. at 14 (an assertion of no apparent relevance to his claims); two pages to a section entitled, “Plaintiff’s Expressive Conduct was not Limited to his Official Duties,” id. (full capitalization omitted) (a point not contested by the district court’s ruling, although the 1 We note that Plaintiff’s opening brief does not contain an alphabetized table of authorities, a jurisdictional statement, or a statement of the issues presented for review, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(a). 6 discussion may have anticipated a potential argument in the appellees’ brief that the judgment could be sustained on the alternative ground of the first element of the Garcetti/Pickering analysis); and one page to a section arguing that the federal court was not bound by a decision of a state district court (a decision in no way relied on in the federal district court’s decision). It is no wonder that the brief’s remaining three pages do not carry Nixon’s burden on appeal. To begin with, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the stigma-plus dueprocess claim because Nixon’s opening brief contains nary a word to challenge the basis of the dismissal—namely, that even if Nixon had a protected liberty interest, he has not shown that the procedures afforded him were constitutionally defective. See EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028, 1051 n.18 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Because [appellant] has failed to present any argument or authority in support of this particular . . . claim, we decline to further consider it on appeal.”). Nixon does only slightly better in challenging the district court’s ruling that none of his statements (aside from his comment on a possible change in the rules for disciplinary proceedings) was on a matter of public concern. His opening brief does assert that he spoke on matters of public concern and does cite some relevant law. But he describes his speech in general terms, never identifying any specific statement. See Aplt. Br. at 12–13 (Nixon “by his conduct and speech engaged in expressions which exposed government wrongdoing, did help the public evaluate the performance of public officials and agencies, irrespective of the judicial or administrative proceedings wherein his 7 speech/actions was involved”); id. at 17 (“By [Nixon’s] continuing efforts to support professional law enforcement and career services’ determinations, including his conduct and his Union Official’s speech on his behalf is protected by the First Amendment.” (sic)). We can hardly review the content, form, and context of what was actually said based on such vague references to allegedly protected speech. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 147–48; Burns, 330 F.3d at 1286; Craven v. Univ. of Colo. Hosp. Auth., 260 F.3d 1218, 1226 (10th Cir. 2001) (“It is the place of counsel, not the Court of Appeals, to identify the specific instances of speech upon which the plaintiff seeks to base her claim.”). By failing to rest his argument on the specific facts of this case, Nixon waived his challenge to the district court’s public-concern ruling. See United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162, 1195 (10th Cir. 2006) (appellant waived argument because he “fail[ed] to offer any detailed explanation of how the district court erred”); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[A] brief must contain an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority. . . . Yet [appellant] offers no articulable basis for disturbing the district court’s judgment.”). That leaves only the third ruling underlying the district court’s dismissal of the case: that Nixon’s 2013 statement before the Civil Service Commission opposing a proposed rule change, although on a matter of public concern, could not have been a motivating factor in Garcia’s termination decision in 2011. Nixon’s opening brief does have a one-sentence paragraph touching on the matter. The final paragraph before the brief’s conclusion states: “The nexus in time between [Nixon’s] testimony and media 8 statements before the Civil Services Commission and the continuing [City] prosecution, attempting to support their unconstitutional actions against [Nixon] in their [state-court] action demonstrates [the City’s] retaliation against [Nixon] for exercising his First Amendment rights by speaking in a public forum[.]” Aplt. Br. at 18. A reader working to find arguments for Nixon could read the sentence to state that the retaliation for Nixon’s Commission speech was the City’s decision to seek state-court review of the Commission ruling in his favor. We have no obligation to address the point because the sentence fails to satisfy minimal standards for intelligibility that we must require from lawyers, it is misleadingly placed under a heading for a different issue,2 and the brief does not even say that the sentence is intended as a response to a ruling by the district court or an argument by the City. See United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1127–28 (10th Cir. 2011) (appellant insufficiently raised claim on appeal because his brief provided only a one-sentence conclusory assertion with “no other argument or authority in support of [the] claim”). Nevertheless, Nixon’s sentence suggests an interesting contention, which we briefly address. The contention is that the City would not have pursued state-court review of the Commission decision in Nixon’s favor if he had not made his statement opposing a rule change. But this is implausible absent additional evidence of motive. After all, the City had determined to fire Nixon and had already appealed the 2 The heading is: “PLAINTIFF’S EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT AS SET FORTH HEREIN IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.” Aplt. Br. at 17. 9 Commission panel’s decision (reversing Nixon’s termination) to the full Commission in April 2012, well before Nixon’s statement in February 2013. The City’s action challenging the full Commission’s adverse decision was simply the next step in the process already set in motion, and Nixon’s complaint does not provide any reason to believe that his speech, as opposed to the original reasons for his termination, motivated the City’s action. As the Supreme Court has said, employers need not refrain from previously planned actions upon learning that an individual has engaged in protected activity and “their proceeding along lines previously contemplated, though not yet definitively determined, is no evidence whatever of causality.” Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 272 (2001) (per curiam) (Title VII retaliation claim); see Trant, 754 F.3d at 1170–71 (fact that alleged retaliatory comments to media were made after plaintiff’s protected speech did not support claim that they were in retaliation for that speech because “they were plainly directed at [an] ongoing dispute . . . that preceded any protected speech” (emphasis added)). The district court’s ruling was correct.