Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02321/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02321-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

I FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stat.es Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JAN 2 41989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk MELVIN TURK; MARCELLA TURK; 

individually and on behalf of 

MELVIN TURK, JR.; JOSEPH TURK; 

ROBERT TURK; and minor children, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

V • ' 

DARRELL MORRIS; BENNIE PADILLA; 

JOHNSON CLAUDE; FRANK GONZALES, 

COUNTY OF MCKINLEY; CITY OF GALLUP, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

No. 86-2321 

(D.C. No. 84-1824M) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

dismissing plaintiffs-appellants' action with prejudice for 

failure to prosecute. The record shows that plaintiffs commenced 

the underlying action on December 11, 1984. On March 24, 1985, 

the matter was set for a jury trial to begin on July 8, 1985. 

Appellate Case: 86-2321 Document: 01019962374 Date Filed: 01/24/1989 Page: 1 
Apparently on the request of plaintiffs, the matter was reset for 

trial to begin after September 1, 1985. 

On October 24, 1985, counsel for plaintiffs, citing a 

conflict with their clients, sought and obtained permission to 

withdraw. On December 16, 1985, the matter was set for trial to 

begin February 3, 1986. On January 3, 1986, the February 3 trial 

setting was vacated in order to allow plaintiffs to retain new 

counsel. The plaintiffs were directed to advise the court within 

forty-five days of the name of replacement counsel. 

On July 2, 1986, the action was dismissed with prejudice. 

The sole issue is whether the district court abused its 

discretion. It appears from the record that the trial date was 

continued at least four times. It does not appear that plaintiffs 

furnished the district court with the name of replacement counsel 

within the time allowed by the January 3, 1986, order. 

While the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute 

was well within exercise of proper jurisdiction, dismissal with 

prejudice may be unduly harsh under the circumstances. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico is MODIFIED to provide that the 

dismissal is without prejudice. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2321 Document: 01019962374 Date Filed: 01/24/1989 Page: 2