Filed: May 16, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 15-15097 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00097-WTH-PRL DENNIS EUGENE CORDES, All defendant’s sued in their official and individual capacities, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. J. CHIPI, Captain, all defendant’s sued in their official and individual capacities, G. COLON, Asst. Kitchen Supervisor, all defendant’s sued in their official and individ
Summary: Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 15-15097 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00097-WTH-PRL DENNIS EUGENE CORDES, All defendant’s sued in their official and individual capacities, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. J. CHIPI, Captain, all defendant’s sued in their official and individual capacities, G. COLON, Asst. Kitchen Supervisor, all defendant’s sued in their official and individu..
More
Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15097
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00097-WTH-PRL
DENNIS EUGENE CORDES,
All defendant’s sued in their official
and individual capacities,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
E. J. CHIPI,
Captain, all defendant’s sued in their official
and individual capacities,
G. COLON,
Asst. Kitchen Supervisor, all defendant’s
sued in their official and individual capacities,
OLGA GRAJALES,
M.D. and C.D., all defendant’s sued in their
official and individual capacities,
CAPTAIN LIEU,
All defendant’s sued in their official and
individual capacities,
C. LOCKETT,
Warden, all defendant’s sued in their official
Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 2 of 6
and individual capacities, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 16, 2019)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Eugene Cordes, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
dismissal of his action against employees of the Coleman Federal Correctional
Institution. The district court sua sponte dismissed Cordes’s second amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court explained
that Cordes had failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to correct
deficiencies in his complaint; his amended complaint contained the same
deficiencies. On appeal, Cordes argues that he attempted to comply with court
orders and did not understand why the case was dismissed. Because the district
court did not determine that Cordes’s violation of a court order was willful and did
not consider whether lesser sanctions were appropriate before dismissing the
complaint with prejudice, we vacate the district court’s decision and remand the
case for reconsideration.
2
Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 3 of 6
In his second amended complaint, Cordes alleged that employees of the
Coleman Federal Correctional Institution violated his constitutional rights by
changing his medical records, stealing his property and medical equipment,
preventing him from eating, and assigning him an abdominal binder without
evaluation. He further argued that they committed copyright infringement by
writing his name on prescriptions. His second amended complaint set forth two
causes of action, whereas his first amended complaint had set forth roughly 15.
The district court sua sponte dismissed the second amended complaint,
determining that the complaint failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order
to correct deficiencies in the first amended complaint. The court explained that
Cordes’s second amended complaint continued to be deficient because it raised
unrelated claims, spanning multiple years, against numerous defendants. The court
further noted that Cordes had been given many opportunities to amend his
complaint and had been warned that failure to comply with the court order could
result in dismissal of the lawsuit. The court did not specify whether the dismissal
was with prejudice, determine whether Cordes had acted willfully, or decide
whether lesser sanctions would be appropriate.
Cordes appealed. On appeal, Cordes argues that he attempted to comply
with court orders and that the claims he alleged in his second amended complaint
3
Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 4 of 6
arose from the same transaction or occurrence. He further asserts that he did not
understand why his second amended complaint was dismissed.
We review dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) for an abuse of discretion. See Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing
& Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.14 (11th Cir. 2009). We construe
pro se briefs liberally. Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) permits a district court to
dismiss sua sponte a plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the rules or any
order of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing that a defendant may move
to dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order”); see also Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d
541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978) (determining that the court may dismiss a plaintiff’s
action “sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases” (internal quotation marks omitted)).1
A dismissal under Rule 41(b) is an adjudication on the merits unless
otherwise specified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Unless the dismissal order states
otherwise, a dismissal under [Rule 41(b)] . . . operates as an adjudication on the
merits”). We have explained that the district court may only impose the “extreme
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to October 1, 1981.
4
Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 5 of 6
sanction” of dismissing a complaint with prejudice when “(1) a party engages in a
clear pattern of delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the
district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Betty K.
Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[F]indings satisfying both prongs of [this] standard are
essential before dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.”
Id. at 1339. “Mere
negligence or confusion is not sufficient to justify a finding of delay or willful
misconduct.” Zocaras v. Castro,
465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006).
As an initial matter, we must view the district court’s dismissal of Cordes’s
second amended complaint as one with prejudice because the court did not
expressly indicate whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). Yet the court effectuated this dismissal without expressly finding
that Cordes’s conduct was willful and without determining that lesser sanctions,
including dismissal without prejudice, were inadequate. See Betty K. Agencies,
Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337-39.
We have occasionally determined that the “findings necessary to support
dismissal” are implicit in an order. See Betty K. Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1339.
But here, there is no indication that the district court made implicit findings either
as to the willfulness of Cordes’s conduct or the adequacy of lesser sanctions, and
so we cannot say that the requisite findings are implicit in the district court’s order.
5
Case: 15-15097 Date Filed: 05/16/2019 Page: 6 of 6
Upon review, the record does not suggest that Cordes’s conduct was willful.
Cordes’s second amended complaint contains substantially fewer claims than
articulated in his first amended complaint, indicating that Cordes had attempted to
comply with the court’s order. Moreover, Cordes argues on appeal that he does
not understand why his complaint was dismissed and asserts that the two claims set
forth in his second amended complaint arise from the same transaction or
occurrence. The record evidence tends to show that Cordes’s failure to comply
with the magistrate judge’s orders was due to negligence or confusion, rather than
willful disregard of court orders.
The district court therefore abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing
Cordes’s complaint without finding that he had acted willfully and that dismissal
without prejudice, or lesser sanctions, was inadequate. We vacate and remand the
case for further consideration.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
6
