Sellers v. State of Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41496
Conference Calendar
DONNIE MACK SELLERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS; JOHN CORNYN; WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;
ROBERT KOENIG; JACKIE EDWARDS; LUMPKINS; JAMES WHEELER;
BURNS; REVIS; ARMSTRONG; TAYLOR; JOE DOE; JAN DOE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-99-CV-503
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donnie Mack Sellers, Texas inmate #857076, appeals the
dismissal, without prejudice, of his civil rights suit because he
failed to comply with the court’s order to authorize withdrawals
of funds from his prison trust fund account for payment of the
filing fee. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
We have carefully reviewed Sellers’ arguments and the
appellate record. The established TDCJ procedures for prisoner
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-41496
-2-
compliance with the fee-payment provisions of the PLRA require a
prisoner-plaintiff to sign two documents, one authorizing release
to the federal court of the financial information concerning the
prisoner’s trust fund account and one authorizing withdrawals of
money from the prisoner’s trust fund account. See Morrow v.
Collins, 111 F.3d 374, 375-76 (5th Cir. 1997). Sellers contends
that he complied with the order to authorize withdrawals from his
prison trust account and that his compliance is evidenced by the
signed form in the appellate record. The document that Sellers
signed authorized release of financial information. The document
did not authorize withdrawal of funds. It appears that Sellers
signed the wrong form.
Because Sellers has yet to authorize withdrawal of funds for
the payment of the filing fee for his complaint, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing, without
prejudice, the complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b). See McCullough
v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.