Filed: Aug. 11, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2004 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk PHILIP P. MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and No. 03-2255 (D.C. Nos. CIV-02-1291 RCB/LFG, PAUL SAMUEL MONTGOMERY, CIV-02-1612 RCB/LFG, and CIV-03-7 RCB/LFG) Plaintiff, (D. N.M.) v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., also known as The Hartford; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA , Chi
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2004 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk PHILIP P. MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and No. 03-2255 (D.C. Nos. CIV-02-1291 RCB/LFG, PAUL SAMUEL MONTGOMERY, CIV-02-1612 RCB/LFG, and CIV-03-7 RCB/LFG) Plaintiff, (D. N.M.) v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., also known as The Hartford; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA , Chie..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 11 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
PHILIP P. MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and No. 03-2255
(D.C. Nos. CIV-02-1291 RCB/LFG,
PAUL SAMUEL MONTGOMERY, CIV-02-1612 RCB/LFG, and
CIV-03-7 RCB/LFG)
Plaintiff, (D. N.M.)
v.
THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC., also
known as The Hartford; HARTFORD
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
MIDWEST,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Judge, MURPHY , Circuit Judge, and CAUTHRON , **
Chief District Judge.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
The Honorable Robin J. Cauthron, Chief District Judge, United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
Pro-se appellant Philip Montgomery appeals from the dismissal of his claim
for fraud and the grant of summary judgment to defendant The Hartford Financial
Services Group (“The Hartford”) in district court. The case was before the
district court on diversity jurisdiction, and all matters concerned interpretation of
New Mexico state law. Appellant alleged that The Hartford had issued him an
automobile insurance policy that he believed entitled him to receive a new car,
rather than to repair his existing car, and that The Hartford had not dealt with him
appropriately in his effort to collect on the claim. The district court traced the
development of appellant’s pro se arguments, and liberally construed his
pleadings, but found that appellant had ultimately not carried his burden of proof
under any of his theories in the case.
One of the difficulties in this case has been determinating the legal basis of
appellant’s suit. On October 15, 2002, appellant filed an original complaint
against The Hartford that suggested causes of action for fraud (R. Doc. No. 1 at ¶
7), bad faith ( id. at ¶ 6), breach of contract (
id. at ¶ 7), and intentional infliction
of emotional distress (
id. at ¶ 8). On January 13, 2003, appellant filed a notice of
-2-
amended complaint that emphasized that his suit was for fraud, as opposed to
other causes of action. (R. Doc. No. 44, ¶¶ 2, 4.) Appellant also filed a
complaint to allege libel against The Hartford for attributing a letter written by
appellant’s brother to appellant. (Compl. in district court case No. 03-0007,
consolidated with the current case by order on January 7, 2003 [R. Doc. No. 27].)
Additionally, appellant filed a flurry of motions, for example, to censure defense
counsel for alleged misconduct and violations of Rule 11 ( see, e.g. , R. Doc. Nos.
7, 41), to object to consolidation of appellant’s cases (R. Doc. No. 72), to request
default judgment (R. Doc. No. 10), to request that “defendants be barred from
using deception to create the basis for [an additional] defense” (R. Doc. No. 15),
to request that a new judge preside over discovery (R. Doc. No. 119), and to
request that the discovery judge be disqualified (R. Doc. No. 124). All of
appellant’s motions on these matters were denied (R. Doc. Nos. 62, 63, 64, 90,
113, 126).
On September 25, 2003, the district court wrote an extensive memorandum
opinion and order reviewing appellant’s case and attempting to isolate appellant’s
central claims. The district court conducted analyses of appellant’s suit under
libel (R. Doc. No. 131 at 6-7), intentional infliction of emotional distress ( id. at 7-
9), fraudulent misrepresentation (
id. at 11-12), and bad faith (
id. at 12-13). For
each theory of recovery, the district court articulated the elements necessary for
-3-
appellant to prove his case, discussed the evidence that the appellant presented,
and found that appellant had not satisfied his burden of proof. See id.
On appeal, appellant asserts that he intended only to make an argument
about fraud ( see, e.g. , Aplt. Br. at 22-25), and that the district court erred in
considering any other claim. But appellant acknowledges that the district court
addressed fraud in its decision, and appellant does not articulate why the district
court’s analysis of the elements of fraud or its finding that appellant had failed to
prove those elements is in error. See, e.g. ,
id. at 25. Instead, appellant now
makes a sweeping policy argument that his case should be an opportunity for this
court to take a stand against alleged abuse of the elderly by the insurance
industry. See, e.g. ,
id. at 59-61. Appellant presents no additional focused legal
argument, nor does he point to any other evidence to support his new statements.
We decline appellant’s invitation to rule for him because he claims to be
litigating a test case to combat abuses against the elderly. A party must support
its argument with legal authority. Phillips v. Calhoun , 956 F.2d 949, 953-54
(10th Cir. 1992). Stating on appeal that a trial court erred “without advancing
reasoned argument as to the grounds for the appeal” is insufficient appellate
argument. Am. Airlines v. Christensen ,
967 F.2d 410, 415 n.8 (10th Cir. 1992).
Although this court liberally construes a pro se appellant’s pleadings and holds
them to a less stringent standard than required of those prepared by a lawyer,
-4-
Gillihan v. Shillinger , 872 F.2d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 1989), we will not assume the
role of advocate for the pro se litigant, nor need we accept as true conclusory
allegations. Hall v. Bellmon ,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because appellant has not properly presented to us an issue of legal error
on appeal, we agree with the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s case and its
grant of summary judgment to defendant The Hartford. See, e.g. , Fed. R. App. P.
28(a); Derringer v. Chapel , 98 Fed. Appx. 728, 739 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 2004)
(providing examples of how appellate pleadings have not comported with Fed. R.
App. P. 28, and subsequently affirming a district court’s judgment). Appellant
has failed to identify substantive legal error made by the district court, and he
attempts to present new, unsubstantiated policy arguments to this court without a
legal basis upon which we might be able to consider them. We thus AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Robin J. Cauthron
Chief District Judge
-5-
