Vlahos v. Old Chicago Restaurant

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-8015
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-8015 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/13/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 13, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court EDUARDO ALBERTO VLAHOS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-8015 (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-00212-ABJ) OLD CHICAGO RESTAURANT; JOHN (D. Wyo.) JOHNSON, individually and in his official capacity as JRG RESTAURANT OWNER,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before McHUGH, MORITZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Eduardo Vlahos worked at Old Chicago Restaurant. The restaurant fired him

for passing counterfeit money, conduct he denies. He sued the restaurant and its

owner in federal court, raising several claims. As an exhibit to his complaint, he

filed a document purporting to be an email from a state judge addressing a pending

criminal prosecution and saying that Mr. Vlahos clearly had not passed the

counterfeit bills. The federal district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice

* Oral argument would not help us decide this appeal, so we have decided it based on the record and Mr. Vlahos’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This decision is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-8015 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/13/2026 Page: 2

for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The dismissal order

questioned the authenticity of the email purportedly from the state judge. Mr. Vlahos

did not appeal that order.

More than eight months after the dismissal, however, Mr. Vlahos moved for

reconsideration. He argued the email from the state judge amounted to an improper,

“external” influence on the federal court’s dismissal decision. R. at 24. And he

claimed that new evidence would prove the email’s authenticity. He also attached an

updated complaint, which mirrored the original in many respects but also contained

some additional information.

The district court denied relief. It treated the reconsideration motion as a

request for relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and

concluded Mr. Vlahos was not entitled to relief under that rule. Overlooking the fact

that Rule 60(b) itself does not authorize the filing of a new complaint, the court

assessed Mr. Vlahos’s updated complaint on the merits. It concluded the updated

complaint had the same flaw as the original: Neither complaint alleged facts

connecting any of the claims to Old Chicago’s actions. And so the court dismissed

the updated complaint with prejudice.

In this appeal, Mr. Vlahos leaves the district court’s analysis largely

unchallenged. 1 He does not dispute the decision to treat his motion as one seeking

1 We have jurisdiction to review only the order denying Rule 60(b) relief and dismissing the updated complaint. See Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300, 1304–05 (10th Cir. 2016). We cannot review the order dismissing the original complaint. See 2 Appellate Case: 25-8015 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/13/2026 Page: 3

relief under Rule 60(b) or attempt to explain why the motion warranted relief under

the rule. Nor does he try to persuade us that his updated complaint actually did

allege facts linking his claims to Old Chicago’s actions. 2 We have construed his

brief liberally, but we cannot create arguments where he has failed to do so. See

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

Although Mr. Vlahos never grapples with the district court’s reasoning, he

does claim the court’s order demonstrates bias. This claim stems from Mr. Vlahos’s

insistence that the email purportedly authored by the state judge was indeed

authentic. The email proves the state judge and prosecutor acted illegally,

Mr. Vlahos’s argument goes, so the federal district court must have dismissed his

case to cover up those illegal actions.

The record contains no evidence of judicial bias. For starters, “judicial rulings

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias” claim. Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). And even if we assume the email was authentic, we still

have no reason to think the federal court sought to cover up any wrongdoing it

revealed.

id. So to the extent Mr. Vlahos argues that order reflected improper bias, we do not consider that argument. 2 Mr. Vlahos’s unsupported assertions that he “had proper claims” and that “relief could have been granted,” Aplt. Br. at 2, do not amount to arguments triggering our review, see United States ex rel. Boothe v. Sun Healthcare Grp., Inc., 496 F.3d 1169, 1175 (10th Cir. 2007). 3 Appellate Case: 25-8015 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/13/2026 Page: 4

* * *

We grant Mr. Vlahos’s motion to proceed without prepaying costs or fees. We

affirm the district court’s order.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge