Stouffer v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co, 10th Cir. (1999)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsStouffer v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co, 10th Cir. (1999)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsF I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
NOV 8 1999
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BIGLER JOBE STOUFFER, II,
Trustor/Custodian,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
FAMILIES AGAINST INJURIES TO
HUMANITY, Beneficiary of Trust
(sued as F.A.I.T.H.),
v.
No. 99-5013
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1034-K)
(N.D. Okla.)
Plaintiff,
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INC., of St. Louis Missouri, Trustees,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before EBEL , LUCERO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
Plaintiff-appellant Bigler Jobe Stouffer, II, appeals from the district courts
order denying him leave to amend his complaint. He requests appointment of
counsel on appeal. Defendant-appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
We deny plaintiffs request for counsel and defendants motion and dismiss the
appeal as frivolous.
Plaintiffs, Bigler Jobe Stouffer, II, and F.A.I.T.H., filed their complaint
alleging fraud, deception, and conversion. Federal jurisdiction was based on
diversity of citizenship,
see 28 U.S.C. 1331, and a federal statute,
28 U.S.C.
1964. The district court dismissed the complaint and plaintiffs appealed. On
appeal, this court determined that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to
establish diversity jurisdiction because the complaint did not identify the
citizenship of F.A.I.T.H.
See Stouffer v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.
, No. 97-5195,
1998 WL 792077, **1 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 1998). This court further held that
plaintiffs had failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.
See id.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the case was remanded to the district
-2-
court with directions to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
See
id.
On remand, plaintiffs filed a request to amend their complaint. The motion
was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, but it requested an
extension of time to file one. The district court denied leave to amend.
We first address defendants motion to dismiss which argues that the prior
appellate decision holding that federal jurisdiction does not exist is the law of the
case. Therefore, according to defendant, this court is without jurisdiction to
consider matters presented by plaintiffs current appeal. The limited issue before
us, however, is whether the district court properly denied leave to amend the
complaint. Consequently, we have appellate jurisdiction over the district courts
order denying leave to amend.
We turn to the merits of plaintiff Bigler Jobe Stouffers appeal. He alleges
the district court erred in refusing him leave to amend his complaint, relying on
28 U.S.C. 1653. We review the district courts decision to deny leave to amend
a complaint for an abuse of discretion.
See Viernow v. Euripides Dev. Corp.
F.3d 785, 799 (10th Cir. 1998). The district courts ruling was based on its
-3-
, 157
determination, despite plaintiffs efforts to establish the identity of F.A.I.T.H. for
diversity purposes, that they had failed to do so.
Plaintiff attached to his appellate materials his proposed amended
complaint. The district court did not have an opportunity to consider it, however,
because it was not filed with the district court. Furthermore, plaintiffs motion
for leave to file an amended complaint did not indicate the contents of the
amendment. Instead, plaintiffs motion argued that the statements submitted by
Joyce Stouffer to show that she was a resident of Oklahoma and that she was the
sole beneficiary and administrator of F.A.I.T.H. were sufficient to establish the
identity of F.A.I.T.H. and satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. The
motion to amend indicated that alleging those facts would cure the deficiencies
referenced by the appellate decision.
Because we do not review on appeal pleadings not first presented to the
district court, see John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weisman
, 27 F.3d 500, 506
(10th Cir. 1994), we do not consider the proposed amended complaint. Therefore,
we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion to amend based on
the information and arguments before it. Plaintiff did not demonstrate the legal
Because we affirm the district courts ruling on this ground, we do not
address the alternate grounds on which the district court denied leave to amend.
1
-4-
character of F.A.I.T.H. to permit the court to examine its citizenship for diversity
purposes.
Plaintiffs motion to amend requested an extension of time to file an
amended complaint. The district court denied leave to amend, implicitly also
denying an extension of time to file a proposed amended complaint. We review
the district courts denial of an extension of time for an abuse of discretion.
Ellis v. University of Kan. Med. Ctr.
See
, 163 F.3d 1186, 1193 (10th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff offered no reason for requesting additional time.
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b) (court may for cause shown grant enlargement of time to file pleading).
The district court did not prevent plaintiff from filing a proposed amended
complaint; rather, it abided by the rule requiring that a proposed amended
complaint be filed contemporaneously with the motion.
See Local Rule 9.3(C) of
the Northern District of Oklahoma. Moreover, throughout the proceedings in the
district court, plaintiff suggested that he could amend his complaint, but he never
did so. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the district courts implicit
denial of an extension of time.
Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel for this appeal. We have
considered the merits of the case, the factual issues raised, plaintiffs ability to
present his arguments, and the complexity of the legal issues, and we conclude
that appointment of counsel will not assist in the presentation of this appeal.
-5-
Cf.
Rucks v. Boergermann , 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (reviewing district
courts denial of appointment of counsel).
Plaintiffs request for appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED.
Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), to count as a prior occasion for
purposes of the three-strikes provision set out in 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr. Med. Facility
See
, 175 F.3d 775, 780-81
(10th Cir.1999). We remind plaintiff that he remains obligated to pay all
installments of the deferred appellate filing fee until it is paid in full. No
exception is made for dismissed appeals.
See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2). The
mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-6-
You might also like
- No ratings yetBetty K. Janis Trista Vee Janis Gust Marion Janis Jason Gust Janis and George Marion Janis v. Ed Story and Associates Clyde Coye McCormick Auction Co Ken McCormick Harold S. Taxel Greta Glavis James P. Hill Associates Commercial Corporation, a California Corporation Mark Seymour Robert Campenalla Holland Equipment Company, Inc., a Utah Corporation Joseph Inc., a Utah Corporation Joseph Kinney Lonnie J. Olsen Harold "Bud" Locke Jerrey William Dick and Gordon Jensen, 83 F.3d 432, 10th Cir. (1996)3 pages
- No ratings yetDerrick R. Parkhurst, Donald Gee and Patrick John McAtee v. Judith Uphoff, in Her Official Capacity as Director of State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections Duane Shillinger, in His Official Capacity as Warden of State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections Ronald G. Ruettgers, in His Official Capacity as Maximum Security Unit Manager, State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections Captain Stan James, in His Official Capacity as Security Manager, State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections Dawna Erickson, in Her Official Capacity as Education Department Director, State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections Candace Hawk, in Her Official Capacity as Education Department Employee, State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections Jerry Steele, in His Official Capacity as Medium Security Unit Manager, State Penitentiary Wyoming Department of Corrections Bill Hettgar, in His Official Capacity as Minimum Security Unit Manager, State Penitentiary3 pages
