Willie Albert Smith v. Clemons , 550 F. App'x 822 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 13-12134     Date Filed: 12/26/2013   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 13-12134
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-20439-UU
    WILLIE ALBERT SMITH,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    COLONEL CLEMONS,
    SGT. FIGUROA,
    et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (December 26, 2013)
    Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 13-12134     Date Filed: 12/26/2013    Page: 2 of 4
    Previously this Court vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of
    Willie Albert Smith’s civil rights complaint against correctional officers at
    Everglades Correctional Institution. Smith v. Clemons, 465 F. App’x 835 (11th
    Cir. 2012). Upon remand the district court dismissed Smith’s complaint on
    different grounds. Now Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his
    complaint as well as a motion we will construe as filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
    Civil Procedure 59(e). Smith contends that the district court abused its discretion
    by dismissing his suit because the court did not find that (1) his failure to comply
    with the court order was willful or contumacious, or that (2) lesser sanctions would
    have been insufficient. For the reasons below, we again vacate and remand.
    After Smith obtained an entry of default against four of the defendants, the
    district court ordered him to submit proof of his claimed damages. Smith failed to
    do so by the due date, but did submit two additional motions for default that
    included affidavits signed by him claiming the amount of damages. The district
    court then gave Smith until March 18, 2013 to show cause why the action should
    not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, stating Smith had failed to comply with
    the court’s earlier order to submit proof of damages. On March 22, 2013, the
    district court dismissed Smith’s suit. On April 11, 2013, Smith filed his Rule 59(e)
    motion, attaching documents including one date-stamped March 15, 2013 titled
    2
    Case: 13-12134     Date Filed: 12/26/2013    Page: 3 of 4
    “Response to Order to Show Cause” that Smith argued was not filed because of a
    problem with the prison mailroom. The court denied the motion.
    We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a court
    order for an abuse of discretion. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing &
    Landscape Serv., Inc., 
    556 F.3d 1232
    , 1240 n.14 (11th Cir. 2009). The district
    court has the inherent authority to manage its own docket in order “to achieve the
    orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” 
    Id. at 1240
    (internal quotation mark
    omitted). The court can dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or if the
    plaintiff does not comply with a court order. 
    Id. The district
    court is not required
    to “tolerate defiance of reasonable orders.” 
    Id. at 1241.
    Nevertheless, the district court’s discretion to impose sanctions on a party
    who fails to adhere to court rules and orders is not unlimited. Dismissal with
    prejudice is improper “unless the district court finds a clear record of delay or
    willful conduct and that lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such conduct.”
    Zocaras v. Castro, 
    465 F.3d 479
    , 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
    omitted); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 
    432 F.3d 1333
    , 1339
    (11th Cir. 2005) (“Our case law has articulated with crystalline clarity the outer
    boundary of the district court’s discretion in these matters: dismissal with prejudice
    is plainly improper unless and until the district court finds a clear record of delay
    or willful conduct and that lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such
    3
    Case: 13-12134     Date Filed: 12/26/2013     Page: 4 of 4
    conduct.”). “[F]indings satisfying both prongs of our standard are essential before
    dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.” Betty K Agencies, 
    Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1339
    .
    Mere negligence or confusion does not justify a finding of willful misconduct.
    
    Zocaras, 465 F.3d at 483
    .
    In many ways this case parallels the Betty K case. There, as here, the party
    alleged to have failed in filing the necessary documents conceded that to be the
    case, although in that case they never tried to file with the court, as Smith claims
    he did. There, as here, the district court failed to specifically find that lesser
    sanctions would not suffice. Also there, as here, the district court did not identify
    in its order a “willful or contumacious disregard for court rules.” Betty 
    K, 432 F.3d at 1335
    . Thus, for the same reasons we were “compelled” to vacate in Betty
    K, see 
    id. at 1340,
    we are compelled to do so here.
    The district court abused its discretion by not making the requisite findings
    to dismiss Smith’s complaint for failure to comply with a court order, as it did not
    find that Smith had acted willfully or that lesser sanctions were insufficient. On
    this record, we vacate and remand the district court’s order dismissing the
    complaint. In light of this ruling, we need not address Smith’s appeal of the denial
    of his Rule 59(e) motion.
    VACATED AND REMANDED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-12134

Citation Numbers: 550 F. App'x 822

Judges: Anderson, Martin, Per Curiam, Wilson

Filed Date: 12/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023