RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017

Case: 15-11914 Date (129 Filed: of 2011) 12/04/2015 Page: 6 of 13
the district court for consideration of a motion for summary judgment are never
properly before the reviewing court on appeal.”); see also Jackson v. Equifax Info.
Servs., LLC., 167 F. App'x 144 (11th Cir. 2006) (refusing to consider credit denial
letters not included in record below); Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d
949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009) (refusing to consider documents introduced on appeal
but not referred to in the motion to dismiss). 1
While this Court has the inherent authority to supplement the record on
appeal, it will grant motions to strike where the information at issue will not
establish any adjudicative facts.
Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Systems
Technology, Inc., 2010 WL 4008789 (11th Cir. 2010). Similarly, this Court will
grant motions to strike where the interests of justice will not be served by
supplementing the record with materials which could have been but were not
presented to the district court. Id.
Finally, granting the motion to strike supplemental evidence is particularly
appropriate where the Appellant has failed to request leave of this Court or has
appended material to an appellate brief by surprise without filing a motion to
1 Even pro se pleadings, which are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys, “do not give courts license to serve as de facto counsel or to
rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Shuler v.
Ingram & Associates, 441 F. App’x 712, 717 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting GJR Inv.,
Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled
on other grounds as recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir.
2010).
A. 379