From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Larson v. Scott

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 26, 1998
157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir. 1998)

Summary

holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action for want of prosecution when the plaintiff failed to comply with the magistrate judge's orders

Summary of this case from Murillo v. Coryell Cnty. Tradesmen, LLC

Opinion

No. 97-41441.

October 26, 1998.

Paul Larson, Iowa Park, TX, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before SMITH, DUHE, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.


Paul Larson, a state prisoner, appeals the dismissal, for want of prosecution after failing to comply with a court order, of his pro se complaint. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

I.

In a suit filed in October 1995, Larson asserted numerous claims, naming twenty-seven individual and institutional defendants. In March 1996, the district court granted Larson's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). In July 1997, citing Strickland v. Rankin County Correctional Facility, 105 F.3d 972 (5th Cir. 1997), the magistrate judge sua sponte ordered Larson to file a new application to proceed IFP and a certification of his inmate trust account that complied with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as amended by the newly-enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "PLRA"), within thirty days or pay a filing fee of $120. The magistrate judge warned Larson that failure to comply might result in dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution.

The President signed the PLRA into law on April 26, 1996. See Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).

Failing to heed the magistrate judge's warning, Larson instead filed an "objection" and moved the district court to rescind the order. The district court denied the "objection."

Thirty days later, the magistrate judge recommended that the court dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, on the ground that Larson had not complied with the order to provide the PLRA-required financial information. Larson filed an "objection/traverse" in which he argued that the PLRA did not require him to submit new financial information to maintain his IFP status, because he had initiated suit and had been granted IFP status before the PLRA's effective date. Two months later, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution, observing that the court had given Larson more than four months to comply with the order.

The court neglected to enter judgment in a separate document pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58; because no party objected to the omission and the court plainly intended to end the litigation on the merits, we may and will exercise jurisdiction over the appeal. See Whitaker v. Houston, 963 F.2d 831, 833-34 (5th Cir. 1992).

II.

Construing Larson's brief liberally, as we must do with a pro se appellant, see Peña v. United States, 122 F.3d 3, 4 (5th Cir. 1997), we explicate his argument as claiming that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint for want of prosecution. A district court sua sponte may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). But Larson argues that the magistrate judge and district court should not have applied the PLRA to him, as he had brought his case and had been authorized to proceed IFP before the PLRA's effective date, and hence a dismissal based on his non-compliance is improper.

We face, therefore, two issues: (1) whether the district court correctly applied § 1915(a)'s certification requirements to Larson despite his pre-effective date filing of the suit and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing. Larson raises other issues, but we find them without merit and do not address them.

A.

Whether the amended § 1915(a) applies to suits brought before and pending at the PLRA's effective date presents a question of law. We review questions of law de novo. Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 144 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir. 1998).

Section 1915(a)(2), as amended by the PLRA, provides that "[a] prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor" must file an affidavit listing his assets and submit a certified copy of his prison trust fund account. In Strickland, we held that § 1915(a) applies to appeals pending before this court on the PLRA's effective date, and thus prisoners with pending appeals must refile with the required prison trust fund account statement and affidavit before we will consider the merits of their appeals. See Strickland, 105 F.3d at 973-74. To maintain consistency in our interpretation of § 1915(a)(2), and seeing no reason why we should treat the case sub judice differently simply because it was in the district rather than appellate court when the PLRA went into effect, we extend Strickland's holding to cases pending in the district court on the PLRA's effective date.

The PLRA requires a plaintiff to refile in compliance therewith during any part of a civil action up to the point of decision. Because Larson was seeking to bring a civil suit on the day the PLRA became law and continued to do so until the dismissal, the court had the statutory authority to order the filing of an application to proceed IFP that complied with the PLRA.

Larson presents an additional argument that misinterprets footnote 2 of Strickland. We specifically rejected the view expressed in Covino v. Reopel, 89 F.3d 105, 107-08 (2d Cir. 1996), that the fee and filing provisions of the PLRA might not apply to cases that had progressed to some indeterminate stage by the time the PLRA became effective where sufficient resources had been expended as to justify excusing the IFP party from the PLRA's requirements. We reiterate that "such prejudice" to a party in an advanced stage of litigation or appeal does not implicate Landgraf concerns. See Strickland, 105 F.3d at 975 n. 2.

B.

Having determined that the district court and magistrate judge correctly applied the PLRA's affidavit and certification requirements, we address whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit for want of prosecution/failure to comply with a court order. We review a dismissal for want of prosecution or failure to obey a court order for abuse of discretion. Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1991); McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127.

When the magistrate judge initially ordered Larson to file an affidavit and a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement, he warned Larson that failure to comply might result in dismissal. The court then gave Larson more than four months to comply, and repeated its warnings of the consequences that would follow should Larson ignore the order. The district court acted well within the bounds of its discretion when it dismissed for want of prosecution.

AFFIRMED.

Larson's motion to enlarge the record is DENIED.


Summaries of

Larson v. Scott

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 26, 1998
157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir. 1998)

holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action for want of prosecution when the plaintiff failed to comply with the magistrate judge's orders

Summary of this case from Murillo v. Coryell Cnty. Tradesmen, LLC

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Bajwa v. Lynch

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Castillo v. United States

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Brown v. Dretke

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from McChesney v. Dretke

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Collier v. Dretke

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Dretke

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Dretke

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Oyelude v. United States Attorney General

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Crowsey v. Warden

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Taylor v. Cockrell

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Gilliam v. Cockrell

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from Solomon v. Cockrell

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from McPherson v. Cockrell

holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA

Summary of this case from MOYE v. COCKRELL

upholding district court's dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute where magistrate explicitly warned plaintiff that failure to comply with court order might so result and plaintiff was given four months to comply

Summary of this case from In re Silica Products Liability Litigation

affirming a sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for want of prosecution under Rule 41(b)

Summary of this case from Wyatt v. Thaler

affirming dismissal without prejudice of prisoner's action for want of prosecution

Summary of this case from Mendiola v. "john

affirming dismissal without prejudice when the litigant was given four months to respond to a court order, yet failed to do so, and the court warned the litigant that failure to respond could result in dismissal

Summary of this case from Cartwright v. Davis

affirming dismissal without prejudice of prisoner's action for want of prosecution where the litigant was given four months to respond to a court order, yet failed to do so, and the court warned the litigant that failure to respond could result in dismissal

Summary of this case from Hernandez-Maradiaga v. Hidalgo Cnty.

affirming dismissal without prejudice of prisoner's action for want of prosecution where the litigant was given four months to respond to a court order, yet failed to do so, and the court warned the litigant that failure to respond could result in dismissal

Summary of this case from Simms v. Customs & Border Prot. Emps. 2012 & 2013

affirming dismissal of case under Rule 41(b) when plaintiff failed to comply with order to produce financial information despite the court's warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal

Summary of this case from Glenn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

affirming dismissal where plaintiff had been warned that dismissal could result from his failure to comply with court order

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Adams Cnty.

affirming the dismissal of a case where the trial court had warned the plaintiff that his case could be dismissed if he failed to comply with court orders

Summary of this case from Conerly v. Colvin

affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute where prisoner plaintiff did not submit trust fund statement and pay filing fee after two warnings from magistrate judge and four months' time to comply

Summary of this case from Scott v. Barber
Case details for

Larson v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:PAUL ALLAN LARSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HERBERT S. SCOTT, ET AL.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Oct 26, 1998

Citations

157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir. 1998)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Bowles

Rule 41(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for…

West v. Ford Motor Co.

This Court has the authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court…