Fields v. Pace , 128 F. App'x 384 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41478
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL ALEX FIELDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIMMY PACE; UNIDENTIFIED STRIBLIN;
W. OWENS; UNIDENTIFIED GALLOW,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:04-CV-143
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Alex Fields, Texas prisoner # 605621, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for
failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to submit a
standardized 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form. He argues that the district
court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint with
prejudice as his original complaint was not deficient and
complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 04-41478
-2-
general rules of pleading. We need not decide the issue,
however, because the district court determined in the alternative
that Fields’s complaint should be dismissed as his claims were
barred by Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). Because
Fields’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of the
prison disciplinary action if successful, the district court did
not err in determining that the claims were barred by Edwards.
Therefore, the court AFFIRMS the district court’s judgment on
this ground. See Esteves v. Brock, 106 F.3d 674, 676 (5th Cir.
1997); Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992).
The district court, however, should have dismissed Fields’s
complaint without prejudice to his right to refile the complaint
in the future if his disciplinary case is reversed or declared
invalid. See Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.
1998) (en banc). As a result, the court MODIFIES the district
court’s judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without
prejudice.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.