Brown v. King

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2007

No. 06-41328 Charles R. Fulbruge III

Summary Calendar Clerk

PAUL ALLEN BROWN

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICHAEL KING; LAURA MCKINNON; CLINT SELMAN; JAMES VAN

METER; JOHN RAASOCH; BILLY SHELTON

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:06-CV-199

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Allen Brown, Texas prisoner # 1135724, proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

On 18 May 2006, the district court issued an order, providing: Brown's

pleadings were deficient, he needed to amend his complaint to correct

deficiencies, and failure to do so within 30 days would result in dismissal. On

28 July 2006, after considering Brown’s objections, the district court dismissed

*

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. 06-41328

the proceeding without prejudice for Brown’s failure to amend his complaint.

Brown maintains his mental illness prevents his amending his complaint or

taking other appropriate action.

A district court may dismiss sua sponte an action for failure to prosecute

or to comply with any order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835

F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). The scope of the court's discretion is narrower

when a Rule 41(b) dismissal is with prejudice or when a statute of limitations

would bar re-prosecution of an action dismissed under Rule 41(b) without

prejudice. Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992).

Although the district court dismissed Brown’s action without prejudice, the

dismissal was effectively with prejudice due to the two-year statute of

limitations. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a).

Where the limitations period “prevents [] or arguably may prevent” further

litigation, the standard of review should be the same as used for reviewing a

dismissal with prejudice. Boazman v. Econ. Lab., Inc., 537 F.2d 210, 212-13 (5th

Cir. 1976). This court “will affirm dismissals with prejudice for failure to

prosecute only when (1) there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct

by the plaintiff, and (2) the district court has expressly determined that lesser

sanctions would not prompt diligent prosecution, or the record shows that the

district court employed lesser sanctions that proved to be futile”. Berry, 975 F.2d

at 1191 (footnote omitted).

There is not a clear record of purposeful delay or contumacious conduct by

Brown. The order to amend was issued 18 May 2006. The action was dismissed

on 28 July 2006. There were no other instances in which Brown did not comply

with a court order. See Berry, 975 F.2d at 1191 & n.5. Moreover, the district

court did not determine lesser sanctions would not prompt diligent prosecution,

nor did it employ lesser sanctions which proved to be futile. See id. at 1192 &

n.7.

2

No. 06-41328

Accordingly, the dismissal of Brown's action was an abuse of discretion.

The judgment is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED for further

proceedings.

3