T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 10, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DAR RE L L G. HAF E N, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. KE VI N C AR T E R, Di r e c t o ro f S I T L A; M I C H A E L M O R R I S, C hai r m an of S I T L A, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 4123 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 6 - CV- 9 8 9 - DB)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antD arr el l G . H afe n, appea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s t he di s tr i ct cou rt ’s dis m i ssal , on m oo tness groun ds, of h i s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 acti on against K evi n C art erand M i chae l M orr i s of the St at e of U t ah School and I ns t i tut i onal L a n d s A d m in istra tio n (“ S IT L A ” ). H e a lso a p p e a ls th e d e n ial o f se v e ra l p o st-- 2 -

j udgm entm ot i ons . I n hi s compl ai nt , M r . H afe n al l eged thathi s r i ght s w er e bei ng v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e h e was n o ta l l o wed t o s p e a k a ta Nov e mbe r3 0 , 2 0 0 6 SI TLA m eet i ng, and he r eques t ed thatthe courtor derSI T L A t o r efr ai n fr om m aki ng any deci s i on r egar di ng cert ai n l and t o w hi ch he ha d l ai d cl ai m . I n a mem or andum opi ni on and or derent er ed on D ece m ber26, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourthel d thatthe ca se w as m o o t bec au se th e d ate fo r th e m ee ti n g h ad co m e a n d g o n e. H o w ev er, exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e vac at e and r emand.

B ackgr ound A c c o rd in g to M r. H a fe n , at s o m e fa r o ff tim e , U tah o fficia ls p ro m ise d to s el l hi m a l ar ge par cel of l and fordevel opm entpurpos es . A ft erper s onal pr obl ems deve l oped betw een M r . H afe n and an a dj ace ntl andow ner , M r . H afe n del ay ed the pur chas e of thi s l and w i th U t ah’ s acqui es cenc e. M r . H afe n cont ends th a t d u rin g th is d e lay he re c e iv e d re p e a ted a ss u ra n c e s th a t U tah w o u ld still se ll h i m th e l a n d w h e n h e w a s r e a d y. Som et i m e i n l at e 2006, how ever , M r . H afe n hear d thr ough the gr apevi ne th a tUt a h

— n a me l ySI TLA— i n t e n d e d t o s e l l th e p r o p e r tyt o s o me o n e e l s e . SI TLA sch ed u led a h ea ri n g fo r N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 to d iscu ss the im p en d ing sale. M r. H afen soug ht l eave to speak a tt he h eari ng , bu tM essr s. C art er and M orr i s, r es pect i vel ySI T L A ’ s D i r ect orand C hai r m an, al l egedl ydeci ded he w oul d notbe perm i t t ed t o do s o.- 3 -

T w o day s pr i ort o the N ovember30 m eet i ng, M r . H afe n fi l ed a one - page c o mpl a i n ta n d a n e ma i l e d mot i o n fo ra t e mpo r a ryi nj u n c t i o n t o p r e v e n tSI TLA from m aking an ybindi ng decis i on w i th regard t o the propertyati ssue. H e al so as s ert ed vi ol at i ons of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar i s i ng fr om , i nt eral i a, the defe ndant s ’ r efus al t o al l ow hi m t o s peak a tthe meet i ng. T he onl yr el i ef r eques t ed, how ever , w as t hatt he N ovember30 m eet i ng be s t opped fr om t aki ng pl ace or , al t ernat i vel y , t hatSI T L A be or der ed nott o m ake a nybi ndi ng deci s i ons r egar di ng the di s put ed l and atthe meet i ng. U nfor tunat el y , bythe t i m e the di s tr i ct courtr evi ew ed the compl ai ntand the mot i on fort empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or der , the hear i ng dat e had a l r eadypas s ed. T hus , the di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on for t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or derand di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntas m ooti n a br i ef m emora ndum opi ni on and or derdat ed D ece m ber19, 2006, butent er ed D ece m ber 26 , 20 06 . N o j ud gmen tw a s e nt e r e d o n a s e pa r a t e do c umen t . Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 8 (a)(1). O n D e c e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , M r. H a fe n a tte m p te d to file a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. I n i t , he cl ear l yr eques t ed thatt he di s tr i ctcourti s s ue an or dergr ant i ng hi m a r i ght t o appea ratanyfutur e SI T L A m eet i ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtdecl i ned t o acc eptthe amended compl ai ntas i tw as fi l ed af t erthe ca s e w as cl os ed and due t o “other pr ocedur al defe ct s . ” R . D oc. 20 at1 ( ci t i ng D . U t ah C i v. R . 3- 5) . T he docke t s heeti ndi cat es thatthe compl ai ntw as l odged ( i tactual l yw as fi l ed) beca us e the case had been cl osed in accordan ce w i th the order of the co urt . M r. H afen al so- 4 -

s u b s e q u e n t l yfi l e d a mo t i o n fo rd i s c o v e ry , a mo t i o n fo rc l a r i fi c a t i o n , a n d two m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on, al l of w hi ch w er e deni ed. M r . H afe n then appe al ed on M ay16, 2007.

D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s gr antof the defendant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s de n o v o , ac c e p tin g a ll w e ll-p lea d e d fa c tu a l alle g a tio n s a s tru e a n d v iew in g th e m in the li gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o M r. H afen . S ee L ov el l v. S t at e F arm M ut. A uto. Ins. C o . , 4 6 6 F . 3 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 8 -99 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B ec au se M r. H afen is pro ce ed ing p ro s e , w e c on s true hi s pl e a di ng s l i be r a l l y . Se e Er i c ks on v. Pa r du s , – U. S. – , 12 7 S. C t . 21 97 , 22 00 (2007 ). In anal y zi ng the d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis m i ssal , w e m ust det erm i ne w hethert he compl ai ntcont ai ns “enough fact s t o s t at e a c l ai m t o r el i ef tha ti s pl a us i bl e on i t s fa c e . ” Bel l A t l a nt i c Corp. v. Tw ombl y , – U. S. –, 12 7 S. C t . 1955, 1974 ( 2007) . I n ot herw or ds , “the compl ai ntm us tgi ve the courtr eas on to b e liev e th a t th is pl ai nt i ff ha s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood of m us t er i ng fac tual su p p o rtfo r these cl ai m s . ” R i dge atR ed H aw k L . L . C . v. Schnei der , 493 F. 3d 1174, 1177 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . M or eover , m ootnes s ques t i ons ar e al s o r evi ew ed de n o v o . F au sti n v . C ity& C o u n tyo f D en v er, 26 8 F . 3 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A tfi r s tgl ance , thi s appea r s t o be an unt i m el yappea l fr om var i ous m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on, as t he or der s di s pos i ng of the mot i ons forr econs i der at i on w er e ent er ed on February9, 2007 and M ar ch 22, 2007, and the not i ce of appea l- 5 -

wa s fi l e d M a y1 6 , 2 0 0 7 . R. Do c s . 2 0 , 2 2 & 2 5 ; F e d . R. Ap p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( pr es cr i bi ng a thi r tydayt i m e per i od forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l ) . H ow ever , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noti ncorpor at e i t s m emora ndum opi ni on and or derof di s m i s s al ( ent er ed on D ece m ber26, 2006) , i nt o a s epar at e documentcons t i tut i ng a j udgm ent . T hus , i t s D ece m ber26, 2006, or derw as notcons i der ed ent er ed ( i ns ofaras begi nni ng t he t i m e t o appea l ) unt i l 150 day s aft eri tw as ent er ed i n t he c i vi l do c ke t . Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 58 ( a ) ( 1) & ( b) ( 2) ( B) ; Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4(a) (7) (A )( i i ). A ccordi ng l y , w e hav e j uri sdi ct i on . S ee C l ym ore v. U nit ed S t at es, 415 F. 3d 1113, 1116- 17 & 1117 n. 5 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( r ecogni zi ng j ur i s di ct i on overor der s gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entand deny i ng m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on w h ere n o sep ara te j u d g m en t had b ee n en tered ). M o reo v er, atthe tim e M r. H afen att em p ted to fil e h is am en d ed co m p lai n t ( a m er e s even da y s aft ert he di s m i s s al ) , no fi nal j udgm enthad bee n ent er ed and no re s p o n s iv e p le a d in g h a d b e e n file d . S e e A d a m s v . C a m p b e ll C o u n ty S c h . D is t., 483 F. 2d 1351, 1353 ( 10th C i r . 1973) ( “A m ot i on t o di s m i s s i s nota r es pons i ve p lea d in g w ith in th e m e a n in g o f [ F e d . R . C iv . P .] 1 5 (a ).”) ; se e a lso C re stv iew V ill . A p artm en ts v. U . S . D ep ’to f H o u s. & U rba n D ev . , 3 8 3 F . 3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 7 -58 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (“ [ A ]n o rd e r d ism iss in g th e o rig in a l co m p lain t n o rm a llyd o e s n o t elim in a te th e p lain tiff ’s r ig h t to a m e n d o n c e a s a m a tter o f rig h t. If fin a l ju d g m e n t is ent er ed di s m i s s i ng t he ca s e, how ever , the pl ai nt i ff l os es thatr i ght . ”) ( i nt ernal m odi fi cat i ons om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , underFed. R . C i v. P. 15( a) , M r . H afe n- 6 -

c o u ld a m e n d h is c o m p la in t a s a m a tte r o f c o u rs e w ith o u t s e e k in g le a v e o f c o u rt . N onethel es s , “the r i ghtt o amend as a mat t erof cour s e i s notabs ol ut e. ” C re stv iew , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 5 5 8 . D e fe n d a n ts a n d th e c o u rts s h o u ld n o t b e tas k e d w ith re sp o n d in g to f

u til e a m e n d m e n ts, a n d th u s “ a c o u rt m a yd e n ylea v e to a m e n d if the pr opos ed amendm entfai l s t o cur e the def i ci enci es i n the or i gi nal pl eadi ng, or coul d nots ur vi ve a s econd mot i on t o di s m i s s . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed). W e evaluat e such a den i al for an ab use of dis cret i on . F om an v . D avis , 3 7 1 U . S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (19 6 2 ). H er e, r emand forcons i der at i on of the amended compl ai nti s r equi r ed for tw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , t he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . H afe n l eave t o fi l e hi s amended c o m p lain t b e c a u se th e c a se w a s c lo se d

– y e t clo sin g th e c a se c a n n o t d e fe a t a litig a n t’ s ri g h t to file a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t p u rs u a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a ). T hus , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s cr et i on w as exer ci s ed w i th an err oneous vi ew of the l aw . Second, as al l uded t o, the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed M r . H afe n’ s or i gi nal compl ai nton m ootnes s gr ounds . W hi l e the r el i ef r eques t ed i n the or i gi nal compl ai ntw as undoubt edl ym ootgi ven the l i m i t ed r eques tt o hal tthe N ovember 3 0 m ee ti n g , see C h u rch o f S cien tolog yv . U n it ed S tat es, 50 6 U . S . 9 , 1 2 (19 9 2 ), th e re q u e st fo r b ro a d e r re lief c o n tain e d w ith in th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t— n a m e ly thatM r . H afe n be gr ant ed a r i ghtt o at t end anyfutur e SI T L A m eet i ng— cur es theW e expr es s no opi ni on r egar di ng anyotherpot ent i al gr ounds for 1 d is m is s a l o r w h e th e r M r. H a fe n h a s a n yri g h t to a tte n d S IT L A m e e tin g s . - 7 - d efici en cyiden ti fied in the d istri ct co u rt ’s m em o ran d u m o p inion an d o rde r. 1 A l though the di s tr i ctcourtal s o r efus ed t o acc eptt he amended compl ai nton the b a s i s o f u n s p e c i fi e d p r o c e d u r a l d e fe c t s , t h o s e d e fe c t s a r e n o ti d e n t i fi e d a n d we b eli ev e the b ett er c o u rse is fo r th e d istri ct co u rtto ide n ti fythem so that M r. H afe n coul d att empt t o cur e them. See Fom an, 371 U . S. at182. VAC AT E D a n d RE M ANDE D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge