Court Opinion

ID: 9370427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 17:00:25.052817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.337744
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-1352     Document: 010110811839      Date Filed: 02/13/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 13, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  NANCY J. MARTINEZ,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 21-1352
                                                (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00659-DDD-NRN)
  ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,                                 (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Nancy J. Martinez appeals the district court’s order granting Allstate Insurance

 Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil

 Procedure 12(c). 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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 21-1352     Document: 010110811839       Date Filed: 02/13/2023    Page: 2

                                    BACKGROUND1

          Ms. Martinez has been disabled since 1999. On January 22, 2014, she

 sustained serious injuries when she was hit by a car while crossing the street on her

 electric scooter. The police ticketed the driver for driving without insurance.

          Ms. Martinez filed a claim under her insurance policy with Allstate, which

 included uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM) coverage for bodily injuries. On

 July 24, 2014, Allstate’s representative, Alicia Reyes, told Ms. Martinez that Allstate

 was denying her claim because she was not in an automobile when the accident

 occurred. She did not hear from Allstate again. Despite multiple requests, Allstate

 has not given Ms. Martinez her files on the accident. Ms. Martinez believes that her

 former Allstate agent, Paul Novak, whom she accuses of fraud,2 may have destroyed

 her files. She also believes that her own attorneys may have conspired with Allstate

 to deny her benefits, but she cannot prove this allegation without having access to her

 files.

          1
         We recite the facts as alleged in Ms. Martinez’s amended complaint, which is
 the operative complaint.
          2
          Ms. Martinez alleges that in January 2011 Mr. Novak took advantage of her
 disabilities and gave her misleading information to convince her to waive coverage
 for certain medical payments and reduce her UM coverage from $250,000 to
 $50,000. She also alleges that Mr. Novak falsely reported that her accident was a hit-
 and-run with no injuries.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 21-1352     Document: 010110811839          Date Filed: 02/13/2023     Page: 3

        Ms. Martinez received settlement funds from American Family Insurance, the

 driver’s insurer. The check, which she never cashed, was dated October 23, 2017.

        On October 18, 2019, Ms. Martinez filed a complaint in state court, which she

 amended on December 23. Ms. Martinez did not articulate her claims clearly or

 consistently. Allstate construed them broadly to include (1) breach of contract;

 (2) common law bad faith; (3) statutory bad faith under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-

 1115 and 10-3-1116; (4) negligence; (5) fraud; (6) civil conspiracy; and (7) breach of

 fiduciary duty. The magistrate and district judges followed suit.

        Allstate removed the case to federal court and ultimately filed a Rule 12(c)

 motion for judgment on the pleadings. A magistrate judge recommended granting the

 motion because Ms. Martinez did not file the breach-of-contract, bad faith, and fraud

 claims within the applicable limitations periods, and she failed to state a claim for

 fraud, negligence, civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty. After considering

 Ms. Martinez’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report

 and recommendation, granted the motion, and entered judgment in favor of Allstate.

 Ms. Martinez filed this timely appeal.

                                       DISCUSSION

        We review a Rule 12(c) dismissal “under the standard of review applicable to a

 [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 653 F.3d

 1281, 1285 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review is “de novo,

 accepting factual allegations as true and considering them in the light most favorable to

 the plaintiff.” Id. at 1286. Our role is “to assess whether the plaintiff’s complaint alone

                                              3
Appellate Case: 21-1352      Document: 010110811839          Date Filed: 02/13/2023        Page: 4

 is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” Smith v. United

 States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)

 (articulating the Rule 12(b)(6) standard).

        We construe Ms. Martinez’s claims liberally because she is proceeding pro se.

 See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For example, we make some

 allowances for deficiencies such as unfamiliarity with pleading requirements, failure to

 cite proper legal authority, and confusion of legal theories. Garrett v. Selby Connor

 Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we “cannot take on the

 responsibility of serving as [her] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the

 record.” Id.; see also Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1175 (10th Cir. 1997)

 (“[W]e will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint

 or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.”). Further, “pro se parties [must]

 follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840

 (internal quotation marks omitted).

        In her appellate briefs, Ms. Martinez describes her accident and her current

 disabilities. She asserts that both the magistrate judge and Allstate’s district-court

 counsel committed fraud, suggests changes for the court’s docket,3 and expresses her

        3
          In her opening brief, Ms. Martinez asks the court to fix what she perceives to
 be docketing errors relating to dates and related cases. We have confirmed that the
 dates listed on the docket are correct. As for related cases, Ms. Martinez seems to be
 asking the court to add her state-court cases to the list of “prior” and “current” cases.
 But since this section of the docket is meant to reflect prior and current Tenth Circuit
 cases, we decline her request.

                                               4
Appellate Case: 21-1352      Document: 010110811839          Date Filed: 02/13/2023       Page: 5

 frustration with this court’s employees and the access restrictions imposed due to the

 Covid-19 pandemic. And she takes issue with the admission procedure for attorneys

 appearing before this court. As far as the substance of her claims, she makes only a few

 conclusory statements that her filing was timely and that Allstate committed fraud. She

 does not challenge the district court’s reasoning, nor does she include a single legal

 citation except to identify the state statutes underlying her claims.

        Even construed liberally, Ms. Martinez’s briefs do not contain any legal argument

 as to why the district court erred in granting Allstate’s Rule 12(c) motion.

 “[P]erfunctory” allegations of error that “fail[] to frame and develop an issue” are

 insufficient “to invoke appellate review.” Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802,

 819 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is insufficient to state on

 appeal that the district court erred, without advancing “reasoned argument as to the

 grounds for the appeal.” Habecker v. Town of Estes Park, 518 F.3d 1217, 1223 n.6

 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Banks,

 451 F.3d 721, 728 (10th Cir. 2006) (refusing to consider an argument for which no

 supporting legal authority was provided); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (“The appellant’s

 brief must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to

 the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies[.]”). Issues that are

 not adequately briefed are deemed waived. See Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841.

                                               5
Appellate Case: 21-1352    Document: 010110811839       Date Filed: 02/13/2023   Page: 6

                                    CONCLUSION

       We affirm the judgment of the district court, grant Ms. Martinez’s motion to

 file a modified reply brief, and deny all other pending motions.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Joel M. Carson III
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           6