Nortey v. St. John Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 11 August 2022
• Docket Number: 21-5084
• Parties: RUTH NORTEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ST. JOHN MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; ASCENSION ST. JOHN d/b/a St. John Health System, Inc., Defendants - Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

RUTH NORTEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ST. JOHN MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; ASCENSION ST. JOHN d/b/a St. John Health System, Inc., Defendants - Appellees.

No. 21-5084

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

August 11, 2022

(D.C. No. 4:19-CV-00523-TCK-CDL) (N.D. Okla.)

Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ^[*]

ROBERT E. BACHARACH CIRCUIT JUDGE

This case arises from St. John Medical Center's termination of Ms. Ruth Nortey's employment. Ms. Nortey sued, claiming discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and failure to accommodate disabilities. The district court granted summary judgment to St. John on all of the claims.

1

On appeal, Ms. Nortey doesn't challenge the district court's reasoning. Ms. Nortey instead argues that (1) the district judge was biased and (2) St. John's counsel acted improperly by deposing Ms. Nortey while her cognition may have been impaired. We liberally construe these arguments because Ms. Nortey is pro se. E.g., McKinney v. Okla., Dep't of Hum. Servs., Shawnee, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991). Even though she's pro se, we cannot make arguments for her or overstep our role as a neutral arbiter. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). In this role, we must affirm.

Ms. Nortey's arguments bear two distinct problems: (1) She did not present any of these arguments in district court, and (2) these arguments would not support reversal.

We generally consider arguments for reversal only if they were presented in district court. Ohlsen v. United States, 998 F.3d 1143, 1163 n.11 (10th Cir. 2021). This requirement exists because we must review what the district court did. See Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah & Oura Rsrv., 28 F.4th 1051, 1070 (10th Cir. 2022) (stating that "we should permit 'the district court . . . to pass judgment on the matter first because we are a court of review, not first view'" (quoting CGC Holding Co. v. Hutchens, 974 F.3d 1201, 1216 (10th Cir. 2020))). If the district court didn't have a chance to rule on an argument, we can't fulfill our role as a court of review.

2

We can't fulfill that role here because Ms. Nortey didn't present the district court with any of the arguments that she's making to us. When an appellant raises arguments for the first time on appeal, we can review those arguments for plain errors. Dodoo v. Seagate Tech. Inc., 235 F.3d 522, 529 (10th Cir. 2000). But we consider the possibility of a plain error only if the appellant asks us to review the arguments for plain error. E.g., Havens v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250, 1259-60 (10th Cir. 2018).

Ms. Nortey didn't ask us to review her arguments for plain error, so we wouldn't ordinarily consider them. Though Ms. Nortey is pro se, we must apply procedural rules...