Meeks v. DeBouse ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10574 Document: 00516976196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10574
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 21, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
James Arthur Meeks, III, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Alvin DeBouse, United States Probation Officer, Northern District of
Texas, Arlington Division; FNU LNU, Chief Probation Officer/Supervisor
United States Probation-Northern District of Texas, Ed Kinkeade’s Courtroom-
Arlington Division; FNU LNU, Supervisor, John Doe Task Force; John
Doe Task Force,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:23-CV-313
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10574 Document: 00516976196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2023
No. 23-10574
James Arthur Meeks, III, Texas prisoner # 00543366 and proceeding
pro se, contests the district court’s dismissing his civil-rights claims for want
of prosecution.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court can
dismiss sua sponte a plaintiff’s action for want of prosecution. E.g., McNeal v.
Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789–90 (5th Cir. 1988). “Unless the dismissal order
states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an
adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Involuntary
Dismissal”). Review is for abuse of discretion. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 789–90.
Because the judgment did not state the dismissal was without
prejudice, it is presumed to have been with prejudice. See Fernandez-Montes
v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 n.8 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[I]t is well
established that a dismissal is presumed to be with prejudice unless the order
explicitly states otherwise”.). The court, however, clarified in its order
denying Meeks’ Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment that “[t]he
dismissal was without prejudice in any event”. Nevertheless, the court
denied the motion and did not amend its earlier judgment.
The judgment is VACATED; this matter is REMANDED for
entry of judgment without prejudice.
2