Fuller v. Harris County , 207 F. App'x 450 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 29, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20353
Summary Calendar
GEORGE V. FULLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-633
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George V. Fuller, a former prisoner of Harris County,
appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The
district court dismissed the suit for failure to prosecute
because Fuller failed to keep the court advised of his current
address, as required by the local rules.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua
sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute. See McCullough v.
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). A district court
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-20353
-2-
abuses its discretion when its decision is based on a legal error
or a clearly erroneous view of the pertinent facts. See Esmark
Apparel, Inc. v. James, 10 F.3d 1156, 1163 (5th Cir. 1994).
The district court’s dismissal was based on the fact that a
court order sent to Fuller was returned to the court by the post
office as undeliverable. Fuller correctly argues, and the
defendant agrees, that Fuller did not change his address and that
the order was returned due to an inadvertent error in addressing
the envelope. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal was
based on an erroneous view of the facts and was an abuse of
discretion. See Esmark Apparel, Inc., 10 F.3d at 1163;
McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127.
We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand
for further proceedings. We decline to address, and leave for
the district court in the first instance, the merits of Fuller’s
argument that he was entitled to a grant of summary judgment.
See Western Fire Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 786 F.2d 649, 653 n.4 (5th
Cir. 1986). Fuller has also filed three motions to supplement
the record on appeal. Those motions are denied.
VACATED AND REMANDED. MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
DENIED.