A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is 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 . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly25,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S ANFORD B. S CHUPP ER, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. WI L L I AM E DI E ; RO BY N C AF AS S O; J E ANNE S M I T H; DAVI D Z OOK; L I N D A D I X , i n t hei ri ndi vi dual and o ffi c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ; ANN KA UF M AN, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 1156 (D . C . N o . 0 4 -M K -35 1 (C B S ))

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. Sanfor d B . Schupper , pr ocee di ng pr o s e on appe al as he di d i n the di s tr i ct cour t , appea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s act i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on o v e rt h i s a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we AFF I RM .-2- I. M r . Schupperi ni t i at ed hi s di s tr i ctcourtl aw s ui tw i th a 38- page c om pl ai nt cont ai ni ng 292 par agr aphs , pl us 120 pages of exhi bi t s . T he magi s tr at e j udge stru ck the c o m p lai n t fo r vio lat ing F ed . R . C iv. P. 8(a ), p arti cu larl yR u le 8(a )(2)’s r equi r ementof “a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the cl ai m s how i ng thatt he pl eade r i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” The cour tgave M r . Schupperunt i l J ul y12, 2004, and then u n til O c to b e r 4 , to file a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t th a t c o m p lie d w ith R u le 8 (a ). T h ree d ay s af

ter th e d ea d li n e, on O ctob er 7 , M r. S ch u p p er fil ed a m o ti o n fo r a fur t herext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e hi s amended compl ai nt . O n D ece m ber16, he te n d e re d a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt re c e iv e d b u t d id n o t file . T he magi s t r at e j udge found thatM r . Schupperhad notes t abl i s hed ex cu sab le ne g lect fo r fa il ing ti m elyto fil e e ith er h is am en d ed co m p lai n t or a r eques tforanotherext ens i on. H e r ecomm ended thatM r . Schupper ’ s m ot i on for fur t hert i m e be de ni ed. T he di s t r i ctcourtacc ept ed the r ecomm endat i on and gr ant ed defendant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he ac t i on beca us e M r . Schupperhad fa i l ed to fil e a n am en d ed co m p lai n t w ith in the d ea d li n e. T h e c o u rtthen d en ied M r. Schupper ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. M r . Schupperappea l s both the di s m i s s al of hi s act i on and the deni al of hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.-3- II. A. M r. S c h u p p e r first a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d ism iss in g h is or i gi nal compl ai nt . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntunder R u le 8 (a ) fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S ee Ku eh l v. FD IC , 8 F . 3 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 8 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). “W h e n re v iew in g fo r a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n , the d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n is o v e rtu rn e d o n lyif

it i s a rb itrar y , ca p ric io u s, w h im sic a l, or m a n ife stly u n re a s o n a b le .” P a c . Fro n tierv . P lea sa n t G ro v e C ity , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 3 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A l t hough a pr o s e l i t i gant ’ s pl eadi ngs ar e ent i t l ed t o a l i ber al cons truct i on, he mustfol l ow t he rul es of fe der al pr ocedur e. O g d e n v . Sa n Ju a n C o u n ty , 32 F. 3d 452, 455 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . T he pol i cybehi nd R ul e 8 i s t o “gi ve the defe ndantfai rnot i ce of w hatt he pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m i s and the gr ounds upon w hi ch i tr es t s . ” L e a th e rm a n v . Ta rr a n t C o u n ty Na rc o tics In tellig e n c e a n dC o o rd . Un it , 5 0 7 U . S . 1 6 3 , 1 6 8 (19 9 3 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). H avi ng r evi ew ed M r . Schupper ’ s or i gi nal compl ai nt , w e ca nnots ayt hatt he di s t r i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s tr i ki ng i t . T he compl ai ntdoes notgi ve the d e fe n d a n ts fa ir n o tice o f M r. S c h u p p e r’s c laim s. A s th e m a g istra te ju d g e n o ted , it “i s over l yl ong, pr ol i x, vague, confus i ng and s om et i m es uni nt el l i gi bl e. ” R . D oc. 103 at7. I ti s nott he r ol e of e i t hert he courtort he defendantt o s or tt hr ough a l engthy , poor l ydr aft ed compl ai ntand vol um i nous exhi bi t s i n or dert o cons truct-4-

p la in tiff ’s c a u s e s o f

a c tio n . See Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); G l enn v. F i rs tNat ’ lB ank , 8 6 8 F .2 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 1 -7 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); see also 5 C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & A rt h u r R . M ille r, Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 1 2 8 1 , at 70 9 (3d ed . 2 0 0 4 ). B. M r . Schupperal s o chal l enges t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o gr anthi m any fu rth er e x tens ion s to fil e a n am en d ed co m p lai n t. U n d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 6(b )(2), w her e a pa r t ym oves aft era dea dl i ne foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o do s om e r equi r ed act , t he di s t r i ctcour tm aygr antt he ext ens i on byfi ndi ng “the fa i l ur e t o actw as t he r es ul tof exc us abl e negl ect . ” W e al s o r evi ew t hi s deci s i on forabus e of d is c re tio n . See Q uigl ey v . R os enthal , 4 2 7 F . 3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a m o v a n t h a s s h o w n e x c u sa b le n e g lec t, co u rts cons i dert he ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng “the dange rof pr ej udi ce t o the [oppos i ng par t y ] , t he l ength of the del ayand i t s pot ent i al i m pacton j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , t he r eas on fort he del ay , i ncl udi ng w hetheri tw as w i thi n the r eas onabl e contr ol of the m o v a n t, a n d w h e th e r t h e m o v a n t a c te d in g o o d fa ith .” P i oneerInv. Ser vs . C o. v. B r uns w i ck Ass ocs . Ltd. , 507 U . S. 380, 395 ( 1993) ( s t at i ng fac t or s i n cont extof

“ e x c u sa b le n e g lec t” te st o f B a n k ru p tcy R u le 9 0 0 6 (b )); P a n is v . Miss io n Hills Ba n k, N. A. , 60 F. 3d 1486, 1494 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( appl y i ng P i oneerd e fin iti o n in R u le 6 (b ) c o n te x t) .-5-

T he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed ea ch of the appl i cabl e fa ct or s and conc l uded t hatM r . Schupperhad fa i l ed t o s how excus abl e negl ectforfi l i ng hi s amended co m p lai n t or at l ea st fil ing h is m o ti o n fo r fu rth er ti m e p ri o r t o h is O ctob er 4 deadl i ne. Fort he s ame r eas ons gi ven bythe di s tr i ctcour t , w e conc l ude thatthe di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng of no “e xcus abl e negl ect ” w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. C. N ext , M r . Schupperar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng the act i on. E s s ent i al l y , t he courtdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on beca us e M r . Schupperhad fa il ed to co m p lyw ith it s o rde r t o fil e a n am en d ed co m p lai n t i n a ti m elym an n er, leav ing n o thing to adjud icate. A d istri ct co u rtm ayd ism iss an ac ti o n fo r fa il u re to c o m p ly w ith a c o u rt o rd e r. See F e d . R. Ci v . P . 4 1 ( b ) . T h i s c o u r ta l s o r e v i e ws s u c h d is m is s a ls fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See Mobl ey v . McC or m i ck , 40 F. 3d 337, 3 4 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A cour tgener al l ys houl d cons i dercert ai n cr i t er i a befor e di s m i s s i ng a compl ai ntunderR ul e 41( b) , i ncl udi ng “( 1) t he degr ee of actual pr ej udi ce t o the defe ndant ; ( 2) t he amountof i nt er fer ence w i th the j udi ci al pr oces s ; ( 3) t he cul pabi l i t yof the l i t i gant ; ( 4) w hethert he courtw arned the partyi n advanc e that di s m i s s al of the ac t i on w oul d be a l i kel ys anct i on fornoncompl i ance ; and ( 5) t he eff i cac yof l es s ers anct i ons . ” Id. ( quot at i ons and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . T he di s t r i ct cour tbr i efl ydi s cus s ed the fi r s tthr ee fact or s i n connec t i on w i th the mot i on for addi t i onal t i m e ( t he s ame or deri n w hi ch i tdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on) , s t at i ng,-6-

“[a ] l t hough t her e i s l i t t l e dange rof pr ej udi ce t o D efe ndant s , the Pl ai nt i ff ha s del ay ed fi l i ng hi s A m ended Com pl ai ntbym or e than fi ve mont hs fr om the J ul y12 deadl i ne–and mor e than tw o m ont hs fr om the O ct ober4 deadl i ne–and the fa ul tfor s u c h d e la ylie s w ith h im .” R . D o c . 1 5 6 a t 8 . W e have uphel d an or derof di s m i s s al even w her e the di s tr i ctcourtdi d not e x p lic itly c o n s id e r e a c h fa c to r o n th e re c o rd . See Arc hi beque v . A t chis on, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. C o. , 70 F. 3d 1172, 1175 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . H er e, the di s tr i ct c o u rt d id c o n sid e r th e m ajo rityo f th e re q u isite fa c to rs, a n d its d e c isio n is s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on. D. Fi nal l y , M r . Schuppercont ends t he courterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. A s w i t h t he otheri s s ues i n thi s appea l , w e r evi ew forabus e of d is c re tio n . See Phel

ps v. Ham i l t on , 1 2 2 F .3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). M r. S c h u p p e r’s m o tio n e ss e n tiallyre itera ted h is a rg u m e n ts a s to e x c u sa b le negl ecti n gr eat erdet ai l and w i t h fur therexpl anat i on. Fort he s ame r eas ons t hat th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d ism iss in g th e a c tio n , the c o u rt a lso d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g M r. S c h u p p e r’ s m o tio n fo r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge