Coles v. Robinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE COLES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-6223
DAVE ROBINSON, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.
(CA-96-1413)
Submitted: May 1, 1997
Decided: May 16, 1997
Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Clarence Coles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Coles, Jr., appeals from the district court's order dismiss-
ing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint for failure to pay the initial
installment on the filing fee. In October 1996, Coles timely consented
to payment of an initial partial filing fee and monthly payments
toward the balance of the $120 filing fee from his inmate trust
account. In December, the district court assessed the initial partial fil-
ing fee of $4.28 to be paid within thirty days. On January 16, 1997,
the district court dismissed Coles' action for failure to pay the $4.28
initial installment on the filing fee.
On January 15, 1997, Nottoway Correctional Center remitted to the
district court from Coles' inmate trust account $12.39--the initial
payment plus the next month's installment. It was not until February
11--one month after the dismissal of this action--that the correc-
tional center notified the district court that it was withholding pay-
ments on the filing fee until the balance in Coles' reserve account
totalled $10.00 or more.
Because the district court was not informed that the correctional
center was withholding payment for this reason when it dismissed
Coles' § 1983 action, we vacate the district court's order and remand
this case so that it may be reinstated on the district court's docket. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2