Christensen v. Taylor, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ANTHONY JEFFREY CHRISTENSEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NATE TAYLOR; JIM WILBERG;
DANIEL MOWER; TYLER JOHNSON;
DUANE BALLANTYNE; KEITH
JENSEN; GREG PETERSON; BRODY
KEISEL,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-4139
(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00992-RJS)
(D. Utah)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, MATHESON, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Anthony Jeffrey Christensen, pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to file a second amended complaint.
1
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.

1
Mr. Christensen’s notice of appeal also purports to appeal from the district
court’s orders dismissing his first amended complaint and denying his motions to
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

June 30, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 19-4139 Document: 010110368595 Date Filed: 06/30/2020 Page: 1

2

I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Christensen, jailed and facing charges for murder and other related
offenses, sued city and county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Granted leave to file
a first amended complaint, he alleged the defendants violated his constitutional rights
by releasing his personal property, bullying a witness holding his power of attorney,
illegally searching and seizing his personal property, denying him counsel to
represent him in his civil lawsuits, serving a warrant on him while he was in jail, and
engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. The defendants moved to dismiss.
On September 24, 2018, the district court granted the defendants’ motions and
dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Christensen filed two motions to alter or amend the judgment. On July 31, 2019,
while the motions were pending, Mr. Christensen moved to file a second amended
complaint. The court denied the motions to alter or amend. It also denied the motion
to amend as untimely and futile, which Mr. Christensen challenges on appeal.

alter or amend. But because he fails to address any of the grounds for these orders as
required under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), he has waived an
appellate challenge to these rulings. “Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be
construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, this court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules
of procedure that govern other litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,
425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (brackets, citation and quotations omitted).
Where, as here, issues “are not adequately briefed,” they “will be deemed waived.”
Id. at 841 (quotations omitted).
Appellate Case: 19-4139 Document: 010110368595 Date Filed: 06/30/2020 Page: 2

3

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Although leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires,
whether leave should be granted is within the trial court’s discretion.” Las Vegas Ice
& Cold Storage Co. v. Far W. Bank, 893 F.2d 1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 1990) (citation
and quotations omitted). “Consequently, a district court’s grant or denial of a motion
to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Because the defendants had not been served with the original complaint, the
district court allowed Mr. Christensen to file an amended complaint “as a matter of
course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). But once he filed the amended complaint, he
could not amend again “with[out] the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
leave.” Id. 15(a)(2). The court denied Mr. Christensen’s request to file a second
amended complaint, stating, “It is hard to imagine what could be more untimely than
a motion to amend filed ten months after entry of final judgment.” R. at 643.
2

“Untimeliness alone may be a sufficient basis for denial of leave to amend.”
Las Vegas Ice, 893 F.2d at 1185; see also First City Bank, N.A. v. Air Capitol
Aircraft Sales, Inc., 820 F.2d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir. 1987) (“[A] district court acts
within the bounds of its discretion when it denies leave to amend for ‘untimeliness’

2
The district court also denied Mr. Christensen’s request because his
“proposed amended complaint [did] not cure the deficiencies of the original
complaint.” R. at 643. Mr. Christensen, however, fails to address the issue of futility
and the issue is therefore waived. Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840 (quotations omitted).

Appellate Case: 19-4139 Document: 010110368595 Date Filed: 06/30/2020 Page: 3

4

or ‘undue delay.’”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion as untimely.
For the first time on appeal, Mr. Christensen argues he has “‘[n]ew
information’” to support a second amended complaint. Aplt. Opening Br. at 10. This
“new information,” however, is not new factual information. It concerns several
Utah statutes that were in effect when Mr. Christensen filed suit. He failed to present
them to the district court. As such, Mr. Christensen has forfeited any argument
concerning the Utah statutes. Because he has not argued for plain error review, the
issue is waived. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir.
2011).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 19-4139 Document: 010110368595 Date Filed: 06/30/2020 Page: 4