Willie Albert Smith v. Clemons , 550 F. App'x 822 ( 2013 )

Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12134
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-20439-UU
WILLIE ALBERT SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COLONEL CLEMONS,
SGT. FIGUROA,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 26, 2013)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Previously this Court vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of
Willie Albert Smith’s civil rights complaint against correctional officers at
Everglades Correctional Institution. Smith v. Clemons, 465 F. App’x 835 (11th
Cir. 2012). Upon remand the district court dismissed Smith’s complaint on
different grounds. Now Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his
complaint as well as a motion we will construe as filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e). Smith contends that the district court abused its discretion
by dismissing his suit because the court did not find that (1) his failure to comply
with the court order was willful or contumacious, or that (2) lesser sanctions would
have been insufficient. For the reasons below, we again vacate and remand.
After Smith obtained an entry of default against four of the defendants, the
district court ordered him to submit proof of his claimed damages. Smith failed to
do so by the due date, but did submit two additional motions for default that
included affidavits signed by him claiming the amount of damages. The district
court then gave Smith until March 18, 2013 to show cause why the action should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, stating Smith had failed to comply with
the court’s earlier order to submit proof of damages. On March 22, 2013, the
district court dismissed Smith’s suit. On April 11, 2013, Smith filed his Rule 59(e)
motion, attaching documents including one date-stamped March 15, 2013 titled
2
Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 3 of 4
“Response to Order to Show Cause” that Smith argued was not filed because of a
problem with the prison mailroom. The court denied the motion.
We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a court
order for an abuse of discretion. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing &
Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.14 (11th Cir. 2009). The district
court has the inherent authority to manage its own docket in order “to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 1240 (internal quotation mark
omitted). The court can dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or if the
plaintiff does not comply with a court order. Id. The district court is not required
to “tolerate defiance of reasonable orders.” Id. at 1241.
Nevertheless, the district court’s discretion to impose sanctions on a party
who fails to adhere to court rules and orders is not unlimited. Dismissal with
prejudice is improper “unless the district court finds a clear record of delay or
willful conduct and that lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such conduct.”
Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1339
(11th Cir. 2005) (“Our case law has articulated with crystalline clarity the outer
boundary of the district court’s discretion in these matters: dismissal with prejudice
is plainly improper unless and until the district court finds a clear record of delay
or willful conduct and that lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such
3
Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 4 of 4
conduct.”). “[F]indings satisfying both prongs of our standard are essential before
dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.” Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1339.
Mere negligence or confusion does not justify a finding of willful misconduct.
Zocaras, 465 F.3d at 483.
In many ways this case parallels the Betty K case. There, as here, the party
alleged to have failed in filing the necessary documents conceded that to be the
case, although in that case they never tried to file with the court, as Smith claims
he did. There, as here, the district court failed to specifically find that lesser
sanctions would not suffice. Also there, as here, the district court did not identify
in its order a “willful or contumacious disregard for court rules.” Betty K, 432
F.3d at 1335. Thus, for the same reasons we were “compelled” to vacate in Betty
K, see id. at 1340, we are compelled to do so here.
The district court abused its discretion by not making the requisite findings
to dismiss Smith’s complaint for failure to comply with a court order, as it did not
find that Smith had acted willfully or that lesser sanctions were insufficient. On
this record, we vacate and remand the district court’s order dismissing the
complaint. In light of this ruling, we need not address Smith’s appeal of the denial
of his Rule 59(e) motion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4