F I L ED U. S
. C OUR T OF AP PE ALS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT M AY 23 , 2006 THOM A S K. KA HN CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1605 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 00 3- CV-T-1 7- EAJ ESTATE O F JOS EPHINE COSIO, CA RL W
. CO SI O , P er sona l R ep re se nta tiv e fo r the E sta te of

Jos ep hin e A
. Co sio , Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe llants , ve rs us DENNIS (JUDGE) ALVAREZ, LEROY MERKLE, JR., etal., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 3, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Cosio and the estate a lso f iled for defa

ult ag ainst Defe ndant B arba ra B oy d Keithly . (R.1- 1 84.) Howe ver, K ei t h l y responde d to this m otion, and no defa ult issued. The Appellants did not inc lud e Ke ith ly

in t he ir mot ion to t he dis tr ic t c ourt , s o w e have no ru lin g to re vie w on this po int wi th r e s p e c tt o K e i t h l y. At the time of the Sec ond Amended Complaint, Keithly ’s last name w as B oy d. 2 2 Carl Co sio ( “ Co sio”) a nd the e sta te of his la te m oth er , Jos ep hin e Co sio ( the

“ es ta te ”) , appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the ir c la im s ina n a ct iona ri sin g ou t of the ap poi ntm en t of a ci vil guard ia n fo r Jos ep hin e Co sio w hil e she w as al ive
. Inthe district court, Cosio and the estate filed a 22-count com plaint allegin g claim s under 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 1 98 5, as well as s ev eral st at e-l aw cau se s o f act io n. O ne de fe ndant, L er oy

Me rk le , Jr
. , ne ve r ap pe ar ed in co ur t or r es pond ed

to the
co m pla int
. C osi o a nd the e sta te m ove d th e Cl er k of the co urt to ente r de fa ult a ga ins t Me rk le pur suant t o F ed er al Ru le of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 55( a)
. ( R. 2- 85. ) T he Cl er k di d not , so C osi o a nd the e sta te f ile d a“ Mot ionf

or a n O rd er Manda tin g aCl er

k D ef au lt” against Merkle. (R .2-104 .) W ithou t ruling on this m otion , the district court 1 dism issed with prej udice the federa l claim s against all defendants, i ncludin g Merkle, fi ndi ng tha t ne ith er

Co sio nor the es ta te co uld pr ove a se t of f ac ts tha t w oul d e nti tle the m to re lie f unde r ei the r sta tut e. ( R. 2- 106 at 3- 4. ) T his a

ppe al f oll ow ed
. O n a ppe al , Co sio a nd the e sta te c ont en d th at the d is trict c ourt e rr ed in di s m i s s i n g t h e e s t a t e ’ s 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 5 c l a i m s a g a i n s tAp p e l l e e s K e i t h l y a nd 2 Me rk le ( Co unt

X ), Cosi o’s § 1985 c la im a ga ins t Appe lle es K ei thl y a nd M er kleTh e Se c on d A me nd e d Co mpl a int a lso inc lud e d, a s p art

of Counts X an d XI , c la ims a g a ins t 3 t h e H o n o r a

b l e D e n n i s F
. A l v ar e z , an d a s p art o f C o u n t X II , a c l a i m a g a i n s t D r . R e n e A
. B o o t hb y, but th e Ap pe lla

nts do no t c ha lle ng e on

a pp e a l th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of the c la ims a g a ins t these de fenda

nts. Appellant’s B r. at 15 n.3. 3 (C ount X I) , an d th e es ta te ’ s § 1 985 cl ai m a ga ins t Appe lle es K ei thl y , Me rk le , T am pa H ea lth Ce nte r, a nd W ill ia m s. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t ne ith er Co sio nor 3 the e sta te of

Jos ep hin e Co sio stat e a le ga lly c ogni za ble c la im und er § 19 85 a ga ins t
an y of t he App el le es . T he Appe llants a ddi tio na lly c ont en d that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by dis m iss ing the c as e w ithpr ej udi ce a nd t he reb y no t a llo w ing the Appe llants to am en d th ei r
co m pla int athi rd ti m e. W e dis ag re e. W e re vie w the de ci sio n w he the r to d ism iss a
co m pl ai nt wit h or wit ho ut pre jud ic e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Bryant v. Dupree , 252 F. 3d 11 61, 1163 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). Feder al Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 15(a) som ew hat te m pe rs thi s di sc re tio n by

pr ovi din g th at

le av e to am en d ale ga lly ins uf fi ci en t
co m pla int sho uld be “ fr ee ly

giv en ” w he n j ust ic e re qui re s it
. N ev ert he le ss, in thi s
ca se , the c ourt i n f

ac t gr an te d le av e to am en d th e A ppe llants ’ f ir st pr o se c om

pla int , re qui ri ng tha t the a m en de d c om plain t be dr aft ed

by ali ce nse d a tto rn ey . T he r es ult
wa s the Second Am ended Com plaint th at the court ultim ately dism issed. The c ourt
co rr ec tly de te rm ine d that thi s Se co nd Am en de d Com pla int fa ile d to a lle ge a ny

via ble4

fe de ra l c la im , a nd the c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc ret io n indis m iss ing it w ith pr ej udi ce , r athe r than a llo w ing the dr af tin g of athi rd a m en de d c om

pla int
. Fi na lly , the Appe llants c ont en d th at the di st rict c ourt e rr ed

in (1 ) fa ili ng t o
co m pe l the Cl er

k to en te r de fa

ult ag ai nst one of the de fe ndants w he n re que ste d, a nd (2 ) dis m iss ing the c la im s a ga ins t a de fe ndant w ho nev er m ove d for dis m iss al
. A s to the form er c ontenti on, w e find no abuse of d iscretion in the court’ s failure to enter, or to order the cler

k to enter, a

default j udgm ent against Me rkle, given the fa ct that the S ec ond A m en de d C om pla int co nta ins no via

ble fe de ra l cl ai m . Si m ilarl y , as to the latter contention, under the circum stances of this case the district court had the power to di sm is s t he cla im

on it s o wn m ot io n. S

e e B y r n e v. Ne

zhat , 261 F
. 3d 1 075, 112 7 n.99 (11th Cir. 2001). AFFIR MED.