2015 UT App 178

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

AARON DAVID TRENT NEEDHAM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20150315-CA

Filed July 23, 2015

Fifth District Court, St. George Department

The Honorable John J. Walton

No. 140500466

Aaron David Trent Needham, Appellant Pro Se

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE, and 

KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Aaron David Trent Needham appeals the February 6, 

2015 Ruling Dismissing Action for Failure to Effect Service of 

Process. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for 

summary disposition. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of 

Needham’s Amended Complaint. Accordingly, we deny his 

motion for change of venue and his request for remand of the 

case to the district court for further proceedings as moot.

¶2 This appeal is limited to a review of Fifth District Court 

case number 140500466. We do not review any of Needham’s 

other cases discussed in his response to the sua sponte motion.

Needham is currently incarcerated at the Utah State Prison. On 

August 4, 2014, Needham filed a complaint for communication 

fraud, seeking relief and damages. The complaint named as 

defendants approximately forty individuals, businesses, state 

agencies, correctional institutions, and newspapers. On August 
Needham v. State

20150315-CA 2 2015 UT App 178

29, 2014, he filed the Amended Complaint, which is the 

operative pleading.1 The Amended Complaint included a 

number of claims for monetary damages, but it also included 

claims regarding prison conditions. In a September 19, 2014 

ruling, the district court advised Needham that the claims 

challenging the conditions of his confinement at the Utah State 

Prison could only be raised in a separate case filed under rule 

65B(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Because rule 

65B(b)(2) requires such a petition to be filed “in the district in 

which the petitioner is restrained or the respondent resides or in 

which the alleged restraint is occurring,” and because the Utah 

State Prison is located in the Third Judicial District, the district 

court ruled that the issues related to conditions of confinement 

must be raised in a new petition filed in the Third District Court.

Accordingly, the district court stated in the case before us on 

appeal that it would take no further action on claims related to 

the conditions of confinement that were inappropriately 

included in a complaint seeking civil damages.

¶3 After examining Needham’s inmate account, the district 

court set an initial partial filing fee of $6.53, but stated that 

Needham remained obligated to pay the full filing fee of $360 for 

his civil suit. After the initial partial filing fee had been paid, the 

district court directed in an October 28, 2014 ruling that “the 

constable and sheriff shall serve a copy of the (first) Amended 

Complaint and any summonses for named defendants upon 

receipt from Plaintiff.” Needham did not provide copies of the 

Amended Complaint or summonses for service on the named 

 

1. On October 10, 2014, Needham filed a Second Amended 

Complaint without obtaining leave of the court or consent of the 

adverse parties. See Utah R. Civ P. 15(a). The district court 

correctly determined that the pleading was a nullity. On 

November 20, 2014, Needham again filed a purported 

amendment to his complaint in which he claimed only to assert 

jurisdiction under title 42 section 1983 of the United States Code.
Needham v. State

20150315-CA 3 2015 UT App 178

defendants. On January 15, 2015, the district court issued an 

Order to Show Cause requiring Needham to show why the case 

should not be dismissed for failure to comply with rule 4 of the 

Utah Rules of Civil Procedure because he had failed to effect

service “no later than 120 days after the filing of the complaint.” 

In response, Needham asserted that (1) he had moved the 

district court for a decision on how to proceed for service of “a 

1983 complaint”; (2) under rule 5(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the court could order that filing of a document 

constituted service of process; (3) because he had purportedly 

changed jurisdiction “to a 1983 complaint,” he was not required 

to serve defendants through a sheriff; and (4) he had been unable 

to proceed because the district court failed to provide direction 

on service by publication. He requested an order authorizing 

service by publication and an extension of the time for service.

¶4 In the February 6, 2015 ruling dismissing the case for 

failure to accomplish service, the district court noted that in 

November 2014, Needham purported to amend the Amended 

Complaint “to modify the jurisdiction to a 1983 complaint.” The 

district court concluded that because any amendment would 

relate back to the date of the original complaint’s filing, it would 

not extend the time in which a summons could be issued and 

served. See Utah R. Civ. P. 15(c) (stating that “the amendment 

relates back to the date of the original pleading”). The district 

court correctly stated that rule 5(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil 

Procedure, which pertains to cross-claims and counterclaims in a 

pending action, “has nothing to do with the 120-day service 

period of rule 4, and does not allow a court to dispense with a 

plaintiff’s obligation to serve each and every defendant.” The 

district court found that Needham did not request an order 

allowing service by publication in case number 140500466 and 

that the district court had directed in its October 28, 2014 ruling 

that personal service was to be made on each of the defendants 

and the sheriff’s obligation to effect service would arise only 

after Needham had supplied the summonses to the sheriff. The 

district court rejected the claim that Needham’s failure to effect 
Needham v. State

20150315-CA 4 2015 UT App 178

service was excused because he was awaiting further direction 

from the district court. Furthermore, Needham had not shown 

excusable neglect for his failure to timely accomplish service on 

the named defendants and therefore was not entitled to an 

extension.

¶5 The majority of Needham’s assertions in his response to

our motion for summary disposition do not pertain to case 

number 140500466. Of twelve exhibits to the response, only 

exhibits 2, 4, 9, and 10 are from the court records in case number 

140500466, so we consider only those exhibits. The Amended 

Complaint asserted civil damages claims against the named 

defendants. It was not belatedly amended to be a “1983 

Complaint,” and any claimed amendment would not alter the 

requirements for personal service under rule 4 of the Utah Rules

of Civil Procedure and the district court’s October 28, 2014 

ruling. Nowhere does Needham claim that he made any effort to 

comply with the October 28, 2014 ruling by providing to the 

sheriff copies of the Amended Complaint and summonses for 

the named defendants. To the extent that Needham asserts 

claims related to conditions of his confinement at the Utah State 

Prison, the district court in this case correctly advised him that 

those claims were not appropriately included in his civil 

damages complaint and must have been asserted in a new 

petition under rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure filed 

in the Third District Court. We agree that Needham did not 

demonstrate excusable neglect that would entitle him to an 

extension of the time to effect service of process.

¶6 We affirm the February 6, 2015 ruling dismissing this 

case. Accordingly, we deny as moot Needham’s request for a 

remand to the district court for further proceedings on his 

complaint and his motion for a change of venue to the Third 

District Court.