# Lee v. Brown

> District Court, W.D. Virginia · July 8, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10692997

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Virginia
- **Decided:** July 8, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10692997

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that dismissal was the appropriate sanction where the pro se litigant disregarded a court order despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

TYRONE HIAWATHA LEE, )
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:20-cv-00600
)
v. )
) By: Michael F. Urbanski
STACY Y. BROWN, et al., ) Chief United States District Judge
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tyrone Hiawatha Lee, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a partial application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). For the following reasons, the case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure
to comply with prior orders.
Background
On October 28, 2020, the court denied Lee’s IFP request and dismissed the action
without prejudice pursuant to the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Lee
subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. That motion was granted on May 12, 2022,
and the case was reinstated to the active docket. In a separate conditional filing order entered
that same day, Lee was directed to submit a completed consent form for collection of the
filing fee, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (“Notwithstanding
subsection (a), if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the
prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.”). The order warned that
failure to return the consent form within twenty days would result in the dismissal of the
action without prejudice. See ECF No. 15 at 1–2.
Lee did not comply with the conditional filing order. Instead, he filed a motion for
relief from the order, in which he objected to being required to consent to payment of the
filing fee. That motion was denied on June 17, 2022, and Lee was directed to return the

consent form to the court within fourteen days. He was expressly warned that “[f]ailure to
comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” ECF
No. 19 at 2. The fourteen-day period has expired, and Lee has not returned the consent
form.
Discussion
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize that courts must have authority to

control litigation before them, and this authority includes the power to order dismissal of
an action for failure to comply with court orders.” Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th
Cir. 1989) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). “Given the inherent judicial authority to make such
dismissals, a court may, in appropriate circumstances, enter such a dismissal sua sponte,
even absent advance notice of the possibility of dismissal.” Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d
606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The propriety of

an involuntary dismissal ultimately depends on the particular circumstances of the case.
Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95.
Under the circumstances presented here, the court finds that dismissal is appropriate.
Despite receiving another opportunity to return the required consent form, Lee has not
complied with the court’s directions. He was expressly warned on two occasions that failing
to return the consent form within the time provided would be cause for dismissal of the

action without prejudice. Consequently, Lee’s noncompliance warrants dismissal. See
Ballard, 882 F.2d at 96 (finding that dismissal was the appropriate sanction where the pro se
litigant disregarded a court order despite being warned that failure to comply would result
in dismissal).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
comply with prior orders. An appropriate order will be entered.

Entered: July 8, 2022
Digitally signed by
Michael F. Urbanski
Dee Chief U.S. District Judge
Date: 2022.07.08 15:22:22
-04'00'
Michael F. Urbanski
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10692997. Public record. Not legal advice.