Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01079/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01079-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1079

___________

Torrance Royster, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Andrew Darling; Steven Hansmann; * District of Minnesota.

Joan Fabian; Joshua Burdine; Robert *

Bruber; Michell Riordan; Kevin Byer; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Ofc. Brewer; Robert Stelle; Sgt. *

Davis; Sgt. McCarty; Robert Feneis; *

Erik Skon, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 22, 2006

Filed: August 28, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Torrance Royster, a Minnesota prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action prior to service for failure to comply with a

court order. We reverse.

On May 23, 2005, Royster was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, was

informed that he was entitled to have defendants served by the United States Marshal

Appellate Case: 06-1079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2006 Entry ID: 2082865
-2-

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2), and was

ordered to submit a Form USM-285 and a copy of his complaint for each defendant

to be served. When Royster failed to submit the Marshal service forms and extra

copies of his complaint, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice.

A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b) for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. See Brown

v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986). The district court need only find that the

plaintiff acted deliberately rather than accidentally, and need not find bad faith. See

Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1260 (8th Cir. 1997). The

record here, however, does not show that Royster deliberately disobeyed the May 23

order. Before dismissal, he informed the court that he had twice requested but had not

received the USM-285 form; the record contains proof of two such requests; and he

asserted that he had delivered one USM-285 form and one copy of his complaint to

prison staff for mailing to the court, and that the mail room represented these items

had been mailed. Thus, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing the action. See Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1219

(8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review); cf. Jones v. Pollard-Buckingham, 348 F.3d 1072,

1073 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court abused its discretion in dismissing complaint

without prejudice for inmate’s alleged failure to comply with court order requiring

him to set forth specific allegations against various defendants because, although

complaint was in narrative form, plaintiff’s recitations clearly identified each

defendant’s involvement). 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2006 Entry ID: 2082865