Court Opinion

ID: 9909494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 17:00:38.406439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:30.027235
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-8015     Document: 010110967913      Date Filed: 12/13/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      December 13, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  RICHARD P. ROMERO,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 23-8015
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-00244-SWS)
  UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD,                                     (D. Wyo.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Richard P. Romero filed the underlying lawsuit seeking to enforce two

 arbitration awards against his employer, Union Pacific Railroad. The district court

 granted Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss and denied Mr. Romero’s motion for

 reconsideration. He now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

 we affirm.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-8015      Document: 010110967913      Date Filed: 12/13/2023      Page: 2

                                     BACKGROUND

        A. Factual Background

        Except where otherwise indicated, the following facts are taken from

 Mr. Romero’s complaint, the exhibits to the complaint, and a letter he sent to the

 district judge.

        Mr. Romero worked as a conductor and then a locomotive engineer for Union

 Pacific. In 2014 and 2015 Union Pacific issued notices of discipline to Mr. Romero

 for alleged violations of its attendance policy. His union, the International

 Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers—Transportation

 Division (SMART-TD), appealed both offense notices on Mr. Romero’s behalf to the

 National Railroad Adjustment Board, which issued arbitration awards in his favor,

 ordering Union Pacific to remove the offenses from his discipline record.

        Meanwhile, Union Pacific granted Mr. Romero a medical leave of absence for

 close to two years starting in March 2017. In April 2019 he was cleared to return to

 work with no restrictions.

        To maintain his certification as a locomotion engineer from the Federal

 Railroad Administration (FRA), Mr. Romero was required to take examinations

 testing his knowledge of relevant rules; but soon after he returned to work, he failed

 one of the tests three times. He requested an opportunity to take the test again.

 Union Pacific declined his request and informed him that he was no longer certified

 as a locomotive engineer.

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-8015    Document: 010110967913         Date Filed: 12/13/2023    Page: 3

       Since then, Mr. Romero has pursued various avenues (including assistance

 from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), which

 represents locomotive engineers) to get another opportunity to take the failed test and

 to obtain back pay. He has also filed discrimination claims against Union Pacific and

 his unions with a Wyoming administrative agency.

       B. Procedural Background

       Mr. Romero’s complaint named Union Pacific as the only defendant, and the

 only claim asserted sought enforcement of the two arbitration awards. The

 voluminous attachments to the complaint, however, included documents about Union

 Pacific’s refusal to allow him to retest, its decertification of him as a locomotive

 engineer, his claim for back pay, his issues with SMART-TD and BLET, and his

 pending administrative actions alleging disability discrimination against Union

 Pacific and both his unions.

       Union Pacific moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (5), and

 (6) to dismiss the complaint, including the arbitration-award claim and any potential

 claims suggested by the attachments. Mr. Romero did not oppose or otherwise

 respond to the motion, and did not move to amend his complaint.

       The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on several

 grounds. First, it held that Mr. Romero’s failure to oppose the motion constituted

 “a confession to the merits of the motion.”1 R., vol. II at 79. Second, it concluded

       1
          See D. Wyo. Civ. Rule 7.1(b)(2)(A) (district court has discretion to “consider
 the failure of a responding party to file a timely response as a confession of the
                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-8015    Document: 010110967913         Date Filed: 12/13/2023    Page: 4

 dismissal was warranted under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process.

 Turning to the substance of Mr. Romero’s claims, the court held that the claim

 seeking enforcement of the two arbitration awards was moot because the documents

 Union Pacific submitted with its motion to dismiss established that it had already

 complied with both awards. Accordingly, the court dismissed that claim under Rule

 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction. See Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1023 (10th Cir.

 2011) (under the mootness doctrine, a federal court must dismiss a case for lack of

 jurisdiction if there is no “actual and justiciable controversy” (internal quotation

 marks omitted)). Also, construing Mr. Romero’s filings liberally, the court

 concluded that the attachments to the complaint and letter alluded to potential claims

 for (1) breach of contract stemming from Union Pacific’s failure to reinstate him

 immediately after his doctor cleared him to return to work, its refusal to allow him to

 retest, and its decision to disqualify him from working as a locomotive engineer; and

 (2) disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

 42 U.S.C. § 12112.2 The court dismissed the potential breach-of-contract claims

 because (1) Mr. Romero failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8;

 (2) under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., the court lacked

 motion”); but see Issa v. Comp USA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding
 that “a district court may not grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
 merely because a party failed to file a response” (brackets and internal quotation
 marks omitted)).
       2
          Mr. Romero’s documents also alluded to potential claims against the unions,
 but his complaint did not name them as defendants, and they are not parties to this
 appeal. Accordingly, we do not address those potential claims.
                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-8015     Document: 010110967913      Date Filed: 12/13/2023     Page: 5

 jurisdiction over claims involving the alleged violations of collective-bargaining

 agreements; (3) Mr. Romero did not bring a breach-of-the-duty-of-fair representation

 (DFR) claim against the unions, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for bringing a

 breach-of-contract claim against a rail carrier governed by the RLA, see Spaulding v.

 United Transp. Union, 279 F.3d 901, 912 (10th Cir. 2002); and (4) any potential

 hybrid breach-of-contract/DFR claim was time-barred. Finally, the court held that

 any potential discrimination claim was time-barred and barred for failure to exhaust

 administrative remedies.

       Mr. Romero filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that he did not

 respond to the motion to dismiss because he was not aware that a response was

 required. He also described his efforts to serve Union Pacific. He then discussed

 some of the facts underlying his claims and explained that he thought that attaching

 the supporting documents was sufficient to raise breach-of-contract, DFR, and

 disability-discrimination claims against Union Pacific and the unions. The district

 court treated the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and denied

 it. The court noted that it had waited to rule on the motion to dismiss until more than

 six weeks after it was filed, which gave Mr. Romero “ample time” to file a response.

 R., vol. II at 89. It said that Mr. Romero’s attempts to serve Union Pacific did not

 accomplish proper service. And it observed that Mr. Romero did not challenge the

                                            5
Appellate Case: 23-8015    Document: 010110967913        Date Filed: 12/13/2023    Page: 6

 district court’s other reasons for dismissing the complaint. It concluded that

 Mr. Romero “offer[ed] no reason warranting relief from the judgment.”3 Id. at 91.

                                     DISCUSSION

       Because Mr. Romero represents himself, “we liberally construe his filings.”

 James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). But “we will not act as his

 advocate.” Id. “Our rules of appeal require appellants to sufficiently raise all issues

 and arguments on which they desire appellate review in their opening brief.” Clark

 v. Colbert, 895 F.3d 1258, 1265 (10th Cir. 2018) (brackets and internal quotation

 marks omitted). “[P]ro se parties [must] follow the same rules of procedure that

 govern other litigants,” including the rule requiring that briefs contain “more than a

 generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” Garrett v.

 Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal

 quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring briefs to

 explain the reasons for each contention with citations to authorities supporting each

 argument). “When a pro se litigant fails to comply with that rule, we cannot fill the

       3
          In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Romero asked for “ample time to
 state” breach-of-contract claims against Union Pacific, a DFR claim against the
 unions, and discrimination claims. R., vol. II at 85. He did not, however, seek leave
 to amend his complaint or provide grounds for an amendment. See Calderon v. Kan.
 Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186-87 (10th Cir. 1999) (affirming
 denial of request for leave to amend where the plaintiff made the request in her
 response to a motion to dismiss and failed to give grounds for the proposed
 amendment).

                                            6
Appellate Case: 23-8015    Document: 010110967913        Date Filed: 12/13/2023        Page: 7

 void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research.” Garrett,

 425 F.3d at 841 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

       In his brief Mr. Romero provides a factual narrative regarding the arbitration

 awards, his work history, his medical leave, Union Pacific’s and the unions’ alleged

 mistreatment of him, and his various efforts to pursue relief against them. He also

 provides information about events that occurred after the district court dismissed the

 case. He then identifies three issues and lists various statutes, without explaining

 how the statutes apply. The brief does not contain an argument section, and it does

 not challenge the district court’s grounds for dismissal.

       Mr. Romero’s factual narrative is not a “substitute for legal argument.” Nixon

 v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). And merely listing

 issues, with no citation to the record and no analysis, is not “adequate briefing.”

 Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Romero fails to

 establish that there was any jurisdictional or substantive basis upon which the district

 court could have granted him the relief he sought, and he fails to show any reversible

 error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Nixon, 784 F.3d at

 1366 (affirming dismissal of claim where appellant’s brief failed to challenge the

 basis for the district court’s ruling); see also Reedy v. Werholtz, 660 F.3d 1270, 1275

 (10th Cir. 2011) (we do not address a district court’s reasoning when the appellant’s

 opening brief does not challenge it).

                                            7
Appellate Case: 23-8015   Document: 010110967913        Date Filed: 12/13/2023   Page: 8

                                  CONCLUSION

       We affirm the judgment. We deny Mr. Romero’s motion for court-appointed

 counsel and for summary judgment, and we deny as moot Union Pacific’s motion to

 strike the motions for summary judgment.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Harris L Hartz
                                            Circuit Judge

                                            8