Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05240/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

HERBERT L. MILLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED VfttW ltatll ~Jl't of Appeals Tenth ei~{'ttit 

JUN 0 31991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-5240 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1 

and JAMES A. BAKER, III, 

Secretary, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 88-C-504-E) 

Submitted on the Briefs. 

Herbert L. Miller, pro se. 

Tony M. Graham, United States Attorney, and Kathleen Bliss Adams, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, on the brief 

for the Defendants-Appellees. 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

TACBA, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-5240 Document: 01019297968 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff-appellant Herbert Miller, appearing pro se, filed 

several lawsuits against his former employer, defendant-appellee 

United States Department of Treasury (the government), alleging 

d d . . . t• 1 race, age, an sex ~scrLm~na ~on. Miller also made claims for 

unfair union representation; unfair pay; arbitrary, capricious, 

and unreasonable decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and arbitrary, 

capricious, and unreasonable procedures used by the Board and the 

Commission. These cases were eventually consolidated. 

The government filed its motion for summary judgment on June 

29, 1990, arguing it had good cause for firing Miller. Miller did 

not file a response to this motion. The magistrate recommended 

the motion for summary judgment be granted. He relied solely on 

Local Rule 15(a) of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma (Rule 15(a)), which states a party 

confesses all matters raised by a pleading to which he does not 

respond within fifteen days. 

Miller claims he failed to file a response to the summary 

judgment motion within fifteen days because he did not receive a 

copy of the motion. The record indicates the government mailed 

the motion to Miller at the address listed on the docket sheet. 

Two days before this motion was filed, however, Miller was 

incarcerated at the El Reno Correctional Facility. Miller admits 

he did not directly inform the court or the government of his 

1 After exam~n~ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5240 Document: 01019297968 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 2 
incarceration, although he claims they had constructive notice of 

this fact. On September 5, 1990, Miller filed a motion to stay 

the proceedings until his release from imprisonment. On September 

24, the district court denied Miller's motion, adopted the 

magistrate's report, and granted summary judgment in the 

government's favor. Miller timely appealed this decision. 

This case is similar to the situation addressed in Hancock ~ 

City of Oklahoma, 857 F.2d 1394 (lOth Cir. 1988). In Hancock, the 

defendant filed numerous trial documents on the last day for 

filing motions prior to trial. Included in these documents was a 

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's counsel did not spot 

this motion and thus did not file a response. The district court 

granted summary judgment for the defendant, relying on Local Rule 

14(a) of the United States District Court for the Western District 

of Oklahoma (Rule 14(a)), which provides that any motion not 

opposed within fifteen days "shall be deemed confessed." Id. at 

1395. 

This court reversed, concluding the district court abused its 

discretion in granting summary judgment on this basis. We focused 

on three considerations in determining whether the dismissal for 

failure to file a responsive pleading was improper: (1) the degree 

of actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the amount of 

interference with the judicial process; and (3) the culpability of 

the litigant. Id. at 1396. We noted that "only when these 

aggravating factors outweighed the judicial system's strong 

predisposition to resolve cases on their merits is outright 

dismissal with prejudice an appropriate sanction." Id. (citing 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5240 Document: 01019297968 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 3 
Meade~ Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (lOth Cir. 1988)). This court 

concluded the district court's failure to balance these 

considerations prior to entering summary judgment based on failure 

to file a responsive pleading constituted an abuse of discretion. 

Unlike Rule 14(a), which gives the district judge the 

discretion to shorten or lengthen the time in which to respond, 

Rule lS(a) appears to require the district judge to automatically 

deem all matters in a pleading admitted if a responsive pleading 

is not filed within fifteen days. Local Rule l(e) for the 

Northern District Of Oklahoma, however, states a "judge ... may 

waive any requirement of these Rules when the administration of 

justice requires such waiver." 

In the present case, the district judge abused this 

discretion by failing to consider the aforementioned factors 

before granting summary judgment based on the nonmoving party's 

failure to file a responsive pleading. The judicial system's 

strong predisposition for resolving cases on the merits leads us 

to the conclusion that summary judgment should not have been 

granted in the government's favor. In the circumstances presented 

here, Miller's failure to inform the court and the government of 

his change of address was excusable neglect. The government 

presented no evidence that it was prejudiced by Miller's failure 

to comply with Rule 14(a). Any inconvenience to the district 

court, either in terms of delay or its ability to properly decide 

the motion, was minimal. Dismissal of an action for failure to 

file a responsive pleading is a drastic measure that should be 

applied "'only where a lesser sanction would not serve the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5240 Document: 01019297968 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 4 
interest of justice.'" Meade, 841 F.2d at 1520 (quoting Cohen~ 

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 782 F.2d 923, 925 (11th Cir. 1986)). 

We therefore REVERSE the district court's grant of summary 

judgment in the government's favor and REMAND to permit Miller to 

file a responsive pleading. All pending motions are hereby 

denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5240 Document: 01019297968 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 5