Orr v. Verhagen

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40181
Summary Calendar
DAVID W. ORR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DICK VERHAGEN; DWAYNE CANNON; MARY CHOATE;
TOMMY THOMPSON; DAVID HOOD; MICHAEL SULLIVAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:98-CV-400
--------------------------------------------------------
July 31, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
David W. Orr, Wisconsin prisoner # 198391, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
claims against Wisconsin officials, Tommy Thompson, Michael Sullivan, and Dick Verhagen.
Because Orr has not alleged that the Wisconsin defendants had any direct, personal involvement in
the alleged constitutional violations or that they established a deficient policy which itself violated his
constitutional rights, he has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against
these defendants. See Alton v. Texas A & M University, 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir. 1999).
Orr also appeals the district court’s order administratively closing the case until he is able to
come to Texas. The district court’s order administratively closing the case is the equivalent of a final
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
judgment and, thus, it is an appealable order. See Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center, 136 F.3d
458, 460-61 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1998)(citing Muhammad v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail, 849 F.2d 107,
112-13 (4th Cir. 1988)); Johnson v. State of Texas, 878 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir. 1989); McKnight
v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477, 478-79 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court abused its discretion in
administratively closing the case indefinitely because it did not provide specific reasons explaining
why such an indefinite stay was necessary, it did not consider alternatives, it did not give the parties
an opportunity to file motions for summary judgment, and it did not make a determination that the
case was ripe for trial and that Orr’s presence at trial would be necessary. See Patton, 136 F.3d at461 & n.3; McKnight, 667 F.2d at 479; Muhammed, 849 F.2d at 111-13. We vacate the district
court’s order administratively closing the case and remand the case for reconsideration.
VACATED AND REMANDED.