Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50387/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50387-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn L. Dunn
Appellant
Et Al
Appellee
Trentin D. Farrell
Appellee
Gracie Lewis
Appellee
Robert Newsom
Appellee
Wayne Salvant
Appellee
Brock Thomas
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50387

Summary Calendar

SHAWN L. DUNN, Member of Texas Courts/Conspiracy against the 

People.org, Class Rep.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HONORABLE TRENTIN D. FARRELL, Individually and in His Official 

Capacity; HONORABLE WAYNE SALVANT, Individually and in His Official 

Capacity; HONORABLE BROCK THOMAS, Individually and in His Official 

Capacity; HONORABLE ROBERT NEWSOM, Individually and in His Official 

Capacity; HONORABLE GRACIE LEWIS, Individually and in Her Official 

Capacity; ET AL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CV-20

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Shawn L. Dunn, Texas prisoner # 1686724, and additional plaintiffs, 

filed a complaint alleging that the defendants had violated their constitutional 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50387 Document: 00512985618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-50387

and civil rights in connection with their prosecutions, convictions, and 

continued incarceration and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and 

damages. The district court severed the claims and opened a new case for each 

plaintiff. Only Dunn’s claims remained in the instant litigation. Dunn was 

ordered by the district court on two occasions to file an amended complaint 

setting forth details of his own claims and the district court warned him that 

failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal. Rather than 

amend his complaint as ordered, Dunn continued to file pleadings on behalf of 

the group of plaintiffs and he filed a motion for class certification.

The district court denied the motion for class certification and, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), dismissed the complaint without 

prejudice for want of prosecution. Dunn appeals these rulings, providing this 

court a difficult to decipher argument and contending, in a conclusional 

fashion, that class certification is warranted. He also has filed motions seeking 

the appointment of counsel, an emergency phone conference, and class 

certification.

Regarding the district court’s denial of his motion for class action 

certification, Dunn has failed to establish that

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the 

class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are 

typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the 

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the class.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a). He therefore has failed to establish that the district 

court abused its discretion by denying his motion for class action certification. 

See M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 836-37 (5th Cir. 2012).

2

Case: 14-50387 Document: 00512985618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-50387

A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute 

or to comply with any court order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); McCullough v. 

Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). A sua sponte dismissal by the 

district court is reviewed for abuse of discretion. McCullough, 835 F.2d at 

1127. The scope of the district court’s discretion is narrower, however, when 

the Rule 41(b) dismissal is with prejudice or when a statute of limitations 

would bar reprosecution of a suit dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992).

As Dunn failed to provide a clear statement of his claims, this court 

cannot determine whether a statute of limitations would bar reprosecution of 

his suit. In any event, Dunn refused to comply with the district court’s explicit 

directive that he file an amended complaint that set forth his claims. Also, 

prior to dismissing his complaint, the district court warned Dunn that it would 

dismiss his complaint if he failed to file an amended complaint. Given Dunn’s 

ability to file numerous other pleadings in the district court in the relevant 

time frame, his failure to comply with the district court’s orders instructing 

him to file pleadings that set forth his own claims appears to be willful and 

intentional, rather than based upon a misunderstanding of the type of 

pleadings the district court required. See Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 

452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2006).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All outstanding 

motions are DENIED.

3

Case: 14-50387 Document: 00512985618 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2015