Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02141/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02141-0/pdf.json

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

---

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge **

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 31, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN PAUL SHERIDAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-2141

v. (D. of N.M.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

(D.C. No. CIV-04-1345-FHS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before HENRY, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

**

John Paul Sheridan appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 

pro se civil action against the United States, in which he alleges the federal

government failed to investigate his allegations that New Mexico state and county

officials violated his constitutional rights. Because Sheridan failed to comply

Appellate Case: 07-2141 Document: 010160714 Date Filed: 10/31/2007 Page: 1
-2-

with the court’s order directing him to amend his complaint, we affirm the district

court’s decision.

I. Background 

In 2004, Sheridan filed a civil action against the United States in federal

court. The United States responded by moving to dismiss on the basis of

sovereign immunity. After Sheridan failed to respond, the United States District

Court for the District of New Mexico granted the motion to dismiss on this

ground. 

Sheridan appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit, and we concluded that

the district court correctly dismissed the claims against the United States. But we

also held that the district court erred by strictly construing Sheridan’s pro se

complaint as only alleging claims against the United States. Because Sheridan’s

complaint could be construed to include New Mexico state and county officials as

defendants, we remanded the case to the district court to give Sheridan the

opportunity to amend his complaint to name the proper defendants. 

On remand, the district court entered an order on April 3, 2007, directing

Sheridan to file an amended complaint by April 27, 2007. Sheridan did not

comply with the order within the specified time, and the district court dismissed

the case sua sponte without prejudice. He now appeals the district court’s order.

Appellate Case: 07-2141 Document: 010160714 Date Filed: 10/31/2007 Page: 2
-3-

II. Discussion

A district court may dismiss a case sua sponte for want of prosecution. 

Joplin v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 671 F.2d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)

(citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). We review for an

abuse of discretion. Id. 

Dismissal with prejudice “is a harsh sanction and should be resorted to only

in extreme cases.” Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1520 (10th Cir. 1988). But

a court may exercise broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss a civil

action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. 8 Moore’s Federal Practice

§ 41.53 (“When dismissal is without prejudice, an abuse of discretion will

generally not be found, since the plaintiff may simply refile the suit.”); cf. Brown

v. King, No. 06-41328, 2007 WL 2908740, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007) (citing

Berry v. Cigna/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992) (“The scope of

the court’s discretion is narrower when a Rule 41(b) dismissal is with prejudice or

when a statute of limitations would bar re-prosecution of an action dismissed

under Rule 41(b) without prejudice.”). 

“[D]ismissal is an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards

court orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules.” United States ex rel.

Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Nat’l

Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642–43 (1976)); see

also Mathews v. Samuels, No. 92-2234, 1993 WL 334250, at *1 (10th Cir. Aug.

Appellate Case: 07-2141 Document: 010160714 Date Filed: 10/31/2007 Page: 3
-4-

23, 1993) (affirming a district court’s order dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s civil

action because the plaintiff failed to comply with an order directing him to amend

his complaint). 

On appeal, Sheridan argues he complied with the court order when he

submitted an “amended criminal complaint” to the District of New Mexico’s

Office of the Clerk. The clerk’s office mailed him a letter on April 11, 2007,

notifying him, “[t]his document is being returned without filing because a

criminal complaint must be prosecuted by the United States.” R., Ex. 6. 

The district court’s dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. Sheridan’s

“criminal complaint” is not part of this record. In any event, there is no showing

that the clerk improperly failed to file the document in this civil proceeding or

that it was otherwise misdirected. Nor has Sheridan suggested any reason why he

could not file a conforming complaint within the April 27 deadline. He is not a

federal prisoner; he did not request an extension of time after he received the

clerk’s letter; and nothing in the record indicates he needed additional time to

comply with the court’s order. In short, the record in this case provides no reason

why the district court’s order could not have been followed.

For these reasons, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

by dismissing Sheridan’s claims without prejudice. 

Appellate Case: 07-2141 Document: 010160714 Date Filed: 10/31/2007 Page: 4
-5-

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing Sheridan’s

complaint. 

Entered for the Court,

Timothy M. Tymkovich

United States Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 07-2141 Document: 010160714 Date Filed: 10/31/2007 Page: 5