Filed: Sep. 15, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2020
Summary: Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 15, 2020 No. 19-30807 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Milton Raymond Hinson, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus David Boyle Hale, Defendant—Appellee. consolidated with _ No. 19-30808 _ Milton R. Hinson, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Jose Francisco Artecona, Defendant—Appellee. Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/
Summary: Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 15, 2020 No. 19-30807 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Milton Raymond Hinson, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus David Boyle Hale, Defendant—Appellee. consolidated with _ No. 19-30808 _ Milton R. Hinson, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Jose Francisco Artecona, Defendant—Appellee. Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/1..
More
Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 15, 2020
No. 19-30807 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Milton Raymond Hinson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
David Boyle Hale,
Defendant—Appellee.
consolidated with
_____________
No. 19-30808
_____________
Milton R. Hinson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Jose Francisco Artecona,
Defendant—Appellee.
Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-30807
c/w No. 19-30808
c/w No. 19-30955
c/w No. 19-30956
consolidated with
_____________
No. 19-30955
_____________
Milton R. Hinson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
21ST Judicial District Office of Public Defense for the
Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana,
Defendant—Appellee.
consolidated with
_____________
No. 19-30956
_____________
Milton R. Hinson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Livingston Parish Sheriff's Department Internal
Affairs,
Defendant—Appellee.
2
Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-30807
c/w No. 19-30808
c/w No. 19-30955
c/w No. 19-30956
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-421
USDC No. 3:19-CV-420
USDC No. 3:19-CV-384
USDC No. 3:19-CV-368
Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Milton R. Hinson, proceeding pro se, moves to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) in these four appeals from the district court’s dismissal of four
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. Because they present the same issue, the
appeals in No. 19-30807, No. 19-30808, No. 19-30955, and No. 19-30956 are
CONSOLIDATED.
By moving to proceed IFP, Hinson is contesting the district court’s
certifications that his appeals are not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Our inquiry
is limited to whether the appeals involve legal points that are arguable on their
merits and therefore are not frivolous, Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983), but we may determine the merits of the appeals if they are
intertwined with the certification decisions, see
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202.
In each of these cases, Hinson moved for leave to proceed IFP in the
district court and asserted that he was unable to provide the certified account
statement required by § 1915(a)(2) because officials at the institution where
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
3
Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-30807
c/w No. 19-30808
c/w No. 19-30955
c/w No. 19-30956
he was confined refused to complete the statement without a court order. In
each case, the district court (1) issued a single deficiency notice warning
Hinson that his case would be dismissed if he failed to submit the account
statement, (2) denied Hinson’s subsequent motion to compel the officials to
provide the statement, and (3) sua sponte dismissed without prejudice based
on Hinson’s failure to file the statement. In support of his motions to proceed
IFP on appeal, Milton reiterates that he was prevented from timely providing
the account statements by the institution, and he identifies a separate case
where he was able to submit the account statement after a different district
court granted a motion and ordered the institution to comply.
Sua sponte dismissal without prejudice based on failure to comply
with a court order to submit an account statement is subject to review for
abuse of discretion. See Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031-32 (5th Cir.
1998). On the specific facts presented here, we conclude that the district
court abused its discretion. See id.; cf. Davis v. Fernandez,
798 F.3d 290, 293
(5th Cir. 2015) (“[W]here the law affords courts discretion as to how a
particular rule is to be applied, courts must exercise such discretion with
leniency towards unrepresented parties.”). On that basis, Hinson’s motions
for leave to proceed IFP are GRANTED and we DISPENSE with further
briefing. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. The district court’s judgments are
VACATED, and these cases are REMANDED to the district court for
further proceedings.
4
