Lee Lucas v. Burl Cain , 573 F. App'x 369 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 13-30989      Document: 00512669762         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/19/2014
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 13-30989                                  FILED
    Summary Calendar                            June 19, 2014
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    LEE LUCAS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    N. BURL CAIN, individually and in their official capacity; TIM DELANEY,
    individually and in their official capacity; DARRELL VANNOY, individually
    and in their official capacity; BOBBY ACHORD, individually and in their
    official capacity; BILLY CANNON, individually and in their official capacity;
    BARRETT BOEKER, individually and in their official capacity; LONNIE
    NAIL, individually and in their official capacity; JUDY LOFTON, individually
    and in their official capacity; JERRY GOODWIN, individually and in their
    official capacity,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 3:12-CV-791
    Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Lee Lucas, Louisiana prisoner # 338382, appeals the dismissal without
    prejudice for failure to prosecute his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 13-30989     Document: 00512669762      Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/19/2014
    No. 13-30989
    various prison officials.    Lucas argues that the district court erred in
    dismissing his complaint for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee without
    first inquiring as to whether he had complied with the court’s fee order. He
    avers that the record reflects that he immediately complied with the district
    court’s fee order by sending a letter to prison officials authorizing the release
    of funds from his inmate trust account. Lucas avers that the district court’s
    order dismissing his complaint should be vacated and that he be reimbursed
    the $455 appellate court filing fee. Lucas cites no authority that would allow
    this court to return the filing fee, and his request is rejected.
    Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district
    court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte if a plaintiff fails to follow a court
    order. Long v. Simmons, 
    77 F.3d 878
    , 879 (5th Cir. 1996); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
    We ordinarily review such a dismissal under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
    See McNeal v. Papasan, 
    842 F.2d 787
    , 789-90 (5th Cir. 1988). However, the
    scope of the district court’s discretion is narrow when the Rule 41(b) dismissal
    is with prejudice or when a statute of limitations would bar re-prosecution of a
    suit dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-
    CIGNA, 
    975 F.2d 1188
    , 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992).
    The district court’s dismissal without prejudice will very likely operate
    as a dismissal with prejudice because Lucas will be barred by the one-year
    limitations period for seeking § 1983 relief. See Henson-El v. Rogers, 
    923 F.2d 51
    , 52 (5th Cir 1991); LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 3492. Therefore, dismissal “is
    appropriate only if the failure to comply with the court order was the result of
    purposeful delay or contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district
    court employed lesser sanctions before dismissing the action.” 
    Long, 77 F.3d at 880
    .
    2
    Case: 13-30989     Document: 00512669762      Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/19/2014
    No. 13-30989
    The record contains no indication that Lucas failed to comply with the
    initial partial filing fee order for purposes of delay or out of contumaciousness.
    Lucas did not demonstrate “the stubborn resistance to authority” that is the
    hallmark of contumacious conduct.           
    McNeal, 842 F.3d at 792
    (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted); see Hatchet v. Nettles, 201F.3d 651, 654
    (5th Cir. 2000).     Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in
    dismissing Lucas’s complaint for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. See
    
    id. The district
    court’s judgment is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED
    for further proceedings.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-30989

Citation Numbers: 573 F. App'x 369

Judges: Reavley, Jones, Prado

Filed Date: 6/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024