Filed: Dec. 28, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-14093 December 28, 2005 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-10042-CV-KMM STEVEN LECKLITNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROGER WAGNON, Lieutenant, CHRISTOPHER GANEM, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (December 28, 2005) Before DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit J
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-14093 December 28, 2005 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-10042-CV-KMM STEVEN LECKLITNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROGER WAGNON, Lieutenant, CHRISTOPHER GANEM, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (December 28, 2005) Before DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Ju..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-14093 December 28, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
___________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-10042-CV-KMM
STEVEN LECKLITNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROGER WAGNON, Lieutenant,
CHRISTOPHER GANEM, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(December 28, 2005)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Steven Lecklitner appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
case with prejudice and its order granting summary judgment in favor of some of
the defendants in the case. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.
I.
This is an action arising out of the arrest of Lecklitner in the City of Key
West on June 24, 2000, for battery on the law enforcement officer, resisting arrest
without violence and disorderly conduct. Lecklitner brought his action against the
City of Key West and three Key West police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Key West and as
to Count II in favor of Officer Donna Wagnon and as to Count IV in favor of
Officer Robert Wagnon. In all other respects, the district court denied the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Subsequently, the district court set the case for trial. It was the fourth case
on the court’s trial calendar and was tentatively scheduled on June 20, 2005. The
district court specifically advised the parties that there were three criminal cases
ahead of the instant case on the calendar and that if the three criminal cases
collapsed the parties in the case should be prepared to proceed as early as June 13,
2005. Lecklitner’s counsel, Cornelius Shiver, indicated to the court that this could
cause him a problem, but said “OK.” After this exchange, Lecklitner did not file a
2
motion for continuance or a motion to be excused from the first week of the trial
docket. On June 13, 2005, the clerk’s office contacted counsel for the parties to
inform them that trial would begin the following day at 1:00 p.m. Neither Shiver
nor Lecklitner appeared for trial at that time. The defendants moved for an entry
of an order dismissing the case. After some discussion, the district court granted
the motion and dismissed Lecklitner’s case with prejudice.
II.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Underwood v. Perry County Comm’n, ___ F.3d ___ , ___ (No. 04-11713) (11th
Cir. 2005).
This court reviews for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order
dismissing the case with prejudice. Goforth v. Owens,
766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th
Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham,
709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983).
III.
We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
City of Key West and in favor of several of the police officers in part based on its
well-reasoned order filed on May 26, 2005.
After reviewing the record, however, we conclude that the district court
abused its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
3
In reading the district court’s order of dismissal filed on June 21, 2005, and the
transcript of June 14, 2005, we are unable to find any consideration by the district
court of any lesser sanctions, as required by our circuit precedent. See
Goforth,
766 F.2d at 1535;
Jones, 709 F.2d at 1458. Neither the district court’s order nor
its statements at the hearing on June 14th ascertain the extent to which Lecklitner
or his counsel was personally responsible for the delay, the degree of actual
prejudice to the defendants, and whether the delay was the result of intentional
conduct by either Lecklitner or his counsel. Accordingly, we vacate the order of
dismissal and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
4