Crownhart v. Strive Mesa Developmental Services ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 21-1329 Document: 010110659394 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 18, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
BRITTANY CROWNHART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 21-1329
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01691-LTB)
STRIVE MESA DEVELOPMENTAL (D. Colo.)
SERVICES; MARK MUSICH; LAURA
RUSSELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BRISCOE, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Brittany Crownhart applied in the district court to bring this suit without
prepaying the filing fees. The district court denied her application, concluding she
could afford to pay the fees. The court ordered her to pay them within thirty days
and warned that, if she failed to do so, the case would be dismissed. Thirty-nine days
later, Ms. Crownhart having failed to pay the fees, the court dismissed the case
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 21-1329 Document: 010110659394 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 2
without prejudice. Ms. Crownhart appeals. Ms. Crownhart represents herself, so we
construe her filings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case if the
plaintiff fails to comply with a court order. See Davis v. Miller, 571 F.3d 1058, 1060
(10th Cir. 2009). If the dismissal is without prejudice, the court need not give
“attention to any particular procedures.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents,
492 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007). We review Rule 41(b) dismissals for an abuse
of discretion. Id. at 1161.
Ms. Crownhart argues that the district court should not have dismissed the case
without addressing the merits. It is true, of course, the district court did not address
the merits. But it had no reason to do so because its decision stemmed from
Ms. Crownhart’s failure to comply with its order to pay fees, an issue unrelated to the
merits. Because Ms. Crownhart neither challenged the order to pay fees nor tried to
comply with it, the district court acted within its discretion when it dismissed the
case without prejudice.
We turn now to Ms. Crownhart’s three pending motions.
• We deny her motion to proceed on appeal without prepaying costs and fees
because she has not presented “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law
and facts.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).
• We deny her motion, filed October 6, 2021, “to add case no. 20-5557” and to
file a supplemental brief. Mot. at 1 (capitalization standardized). No case in
2
Appellate Case: 21-1329 Document: 010110659394 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 3
this court has been assigned number 20-5557, and her supplemental brief does
not address the alleged error surrounding the district court’s dismissal.
• We deny her motion, filed October 19, 2021, to “file additional brief.” Mot.
at 1 (capitalization standardized). Her second supplemental brief also does not
address the district court’s dismissal.
In sum, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny Ms. Crownhart’s
three pending motions.
Entered for the Court
Veronica S. Rossman
Circuit Judge
3