UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

DAVID WEBB, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MEGAN SMITH, U.S. Marshal’s Service 

Inspector; RICK CASAS, U.S. Marshal's 

Service Inspector; JAMES A. 

THOMPSON, U.S. Marshal for District of 

Utah; ELIZABETH LNU, Deputy Clerk; 

MICHELLE LNU, Deputy Clerk; LOUISE 

S. YORK, Attorney, Chief Deputy Clerk, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 16-4003 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00049-DLR) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

David Webb appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his 

complaint. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 29, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
-2- 

I 

 Webb filed suit against several members of the U.S. Marshals Service and the 

District of Utah clerk’s office because he was required to be accompanied by an 

armed security escort during visits to the District of Utah courthouse. He alleged 

violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 

and state tort law. The district court dismissed the Title VI claims for failure to state 

a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and dismissed the FTCA claims for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Webb appealed to this court. 

We affirmed and remanded to the district court to clarify that the FTCA claims were 

dismissed without prejudice and to address Webb’s state tort claims. On remand, the 

district court amended its judgment to state that the dismissal of the FTCA claims 

was without prejudice, and that the court declined to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state tort claims. Webb then filed a motion to amend his 

complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. The district court denied his motion 

because it had already issued a final judgment in the case. This appeal followed. 

II 

 Webb argues the district court erred in denying his motion to amend his 

complaint because the complaint demonstrated that his claims had merit.1

 We review 

a district court’s denial of a Rule 15 motion to amend for abuse of discretion. 

Woolsey v. Marion Labs., Inc., 934 F.2d 1452, 1462 (10th Cir. 1991). 

 1

 We construe Webb’s pro se filings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 

1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 
-3- 

“This court has repeatedly and unequivocally held that once judgment is 

entered, the filing of an amended complaint is not permissible until judgment is set 

aside or vacated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b).” The Tool Box, Inc. v. 

Ogden City Corp., 419 F.3d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). Webb 

filed his motion to amend after the district court entered its amended judgment. And 

the amended judgment was not set aside or vacated. Further, as recognized in our 

prior order and judgment, Webb must exhaust administrative remedies before the 

district court would have jurisdiction over his FTCA claims. Although Webb filed an 

administrative complaint, he has not demonstrated that the complaint has been 

denied. Thus, he has not shown that he exhausted administrative remedies. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2675(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Webb’s 

motion to amend his complaint.2

 

III 

 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

 2

 Webb also appeals the district court’s amended judgment. However, Webb 

merely restates arguments made in his prior appeal. These arguments are barred by 

the law of the case. Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp., 53 F.3d 1181, 1183 (10th Cir. 

1995) (“[W]hen a case is appealed and remanded, the decision of the appellate court 

establishes the law of the case and ordinarily will be followed by both the trial court 

on remand and the appellate court in any subsequent appeal.”).