Opinion ID: 156718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions Rulings

Text: Mr. Petersen correctly asserts that the district court never explicitedly ruled on his motion to amend his complaint . However, the district court’s order granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment and entering default judgment against defendant Anderson impliedly denied his motion to amend. See Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1163 (10th Cir. 1991). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) requires that leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given.” Therefore, the “district court must justify its denial of a motion to amend with reasons such as futility of amendment or undue delay.” Bauchman ex rel. Bauchman v. West High Sch. , 132 F.3d 542, 559 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2370 (1998). However, the court’s failure to give reasons is considered harmless error where the reason for the denial is apparent. See Drake, 927 F.2d at 1163. Further, we are “free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by -7- the district court.” United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994). The record supports denial of the motion to amend. Mr. Petersen did not include a copy of the proposed amended complaint, but stated in his motion that he wished to add more details regarding the defendants’ involvement in the complained of acts. As we have already determined that none of the acts Mr. Petersen complained of involved constitutional violations, the addition of more details could not assist Mr. Petersen’s cause. “[A]ny amendment would be futile.” Grossman v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d 1112, 1126 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Petersen’s motion to amend his complaint.
We review the denial of a motion for default judgment for abuse of discretion. See Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, N.A., 60 F.3d 1486, 1494 (10th Cir. 1995). The entry of a default judgment is a harsh sanction and resolution of disputes on the merits is strongly favored. See Ruplinger v. Rains (In re Rains), 946 F.2d 731, 732 (10th Cir. 1991) . Therefore, default judgment is normally “available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party” and “the diligent party must be protected lest he -8- be faced with interminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his rights.” Id. at 732-33 (quotation omitted). Mr. Petersen moved for default before defendant Marshall had been served. Marshall was not timely served because Mr. Petersen had not provided his correct address. Until a defendant is properly served, the defendant has no duty to answer or make other motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A) (defendant must serve answer “within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint”). As defendants have no duty to plead until properly served, entry of default prior to service is improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (clerk shall enter default, when party against whom judgment is sought has failed to plead); see, e.g., Camp v. Guercio, 464 F. Supp. 343, 346 (W.D. Pa. 1979) (court would not enter default judgment for failure to file timely answer where evidence was conflicting as to whether amended complaint was ever served on defendant). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for default judgment.
“We review the denial of appointment of counsel in a civil case for an abuse of discretion.” Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). The district court may appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff if, under the totality of the circumstances, the denial of counsel would result in a -9- fundamentally unfair proceeding, see McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 839-40 (10th Cir. 1985), considering the merits of the claims, the nature of the factual issues, the litigant’s ability to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal issues, see Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Petersen’s motion for appointment of counsel. His claims are without merit and, therefore, the proceeding was not fundamentally unfair absent appointment of counsel. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court David M. Ebel