Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-01082/USCOURTS-ca10-08-01082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Correctional Healthcare Management Contractor Company
Appellee
Hewitt
Appellee
Jefferson County Jail
Appellee
Nurse Ricci
Appellee
Sanchez
Appellee
Louis C. Sheptin
Appellant
Sheriff
Appellee
Teller County Jail
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 6, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LOUIS C. SHEPTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE

MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR

COMPANY; JEFFERSON COUNTY

JAIL; TELLER COUNTY JAIL;

SHERIFF, Teller County Jail; Nurse

Jane Doe, Jefferson County Jail;

Nurse Jane Doe, Teller County Jail;

HEWITT, Nurse Practitioner, Teller

County Jail; SANCHEZ, Cpl., Teller

County Jail; NURSE RICCI,

(Dpt. Morland),

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-1082

(D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00151-BNB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HOLMES, PORFILIO, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Appellate Case: 08-1082 Document: 01013377821 Date Filed: 08/06/2008 Page: 1 
-2-

Louis C. Sheptin appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal without

prejudice of his action based upon his failure to comply with a court order. 

Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Mr. Sheptin filed in the United States District Court for the District of

Colorado a pro se complaint for damages related to his medical treatment while

incarcerated in two county jails in Colorado. Along with his complaint, he filed a

“Motion IFP” seeking permission to pursue his claims in forma pauperis (ifp) in

the district court. A magistrate judge entered an order on January 24, 2008,

directing the clerk’s office to commence a civil action, but ordering plaintiff to

cure the deficiencies in his initial filing. Those deficiencies included his failure

to use the court’s standard forms and his failure to file a certified copy of his

prisoner trust fund account statement for the six-month period preceding his

filing. The order gave Mr. Sheptin thirty days to comply or his action would be

dismissed without prejudice.

Mr. Sheptin responded to the court’s order by filing, on the proper forms,

an amended complaint and a motion and affidavit for leave to proceed under

28 U.S.C. § 1915. In lieu of filing his six-month account statement, he stated

under penalty of perjury that he was indigent, and he attached to his motion an

order from a separate action in the United States District Court for the Western

District of Oklahoma granting him leave to proceed ifp. He subsequently filed

another motion and affidavit for leave to proceed under § 1915, again failing to

Appellate Case: 08-1082 Document: 01013377821 Date Filed: 08/06/2008 Page: 2 
-3-

file a copy of his six-month account statement. He attached to this motion a copy

of a docket entry by the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois granting his motion to proceed ifp in another separate case. Within the

thirty-day period after the district court’s January 24 order he also filed a

supplement to his complaint, but he never filed his six-month account statement.

The district court denied Mr. Sheptin’s motion for leave to proceed ifp

pursuant to § 1915. The court noted that, in order to proceed ifp, that section

requires a prisoner to submit “‘a certified copy of the trust fund account statement

(or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately

proceeding the filing of the complaint . . . obtained from the appropriate official

of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.’” R., Doc. 11 at 3

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)). Because he failed to file his account statement

within thirty days of the court’s January 24 order, the court dismissed his action

without prejudice and entered judgment on March 4, 2008.

We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s dismissal without

prejudice of Mr. Sheptin’s case. See Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 448

(10th Cir. 2006) (holding that dismissal without prejudice of entire action is final,

appealable order). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal

of an action for failure to comply with a court order. Gripe v. City of Enid,

312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a

district court makes a clear error of judgment or exceeds the bounds of

Appellate Case: 08-1082 Document: 01013377821 Date Filed: 08/06/2008 Page: 3 
-4-

permissible choice in the circumstances. This occurs when a district court relies

upon an erroneous conclusion of law or upon clearly erroneous findings of fact.” 

Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1143

(10th Cir. 2007) (alteration, citation, and quotation omitted). When the dismissal

is without prejudice, “a district court need not follow any particular procedures.” 

Id. at 1143 n.10 (quotation omitted). 

Mr. Sheptin sought to file his action without prepayment of the filing fee

under § 1915. It is undisputed that he failed to satisfy one of the statutory criteria

for doing so. On that basis alone, the district court was unable to grant his ifp

application. See Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 417 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Despite being warned that his action would be dismissed if he failed to cure all of

the deficiencies in his filing, he did not submit a copy of his six-month certified

account statement within thirty days of the court’s order. 

On appeal, he argues that the district court did not take into account his

statement under oath in his first § 1915 motion and affidavit that he is indigent. 

But the statute is clear that, in addition to the prisoner’s affidavit of indigency, he

must also file the six-month certified account statement. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2). He also asserts that, because he was “in transit” and suffering from

a serious illness, he was “unable to keep up with his mail.” Aplt. Opening Br. at

3, 2. It is clear, however, that Mr. Sheptin received the district court’s January 24

order in a timely manner because he promptly responded by curing every defect in

Appellate Case: 08-1082 Document: 01013377821 Date Filed: 08/06/2008 Page: 4 
1 Moreover, it appears that Mr. Sheptin continues to avoid the requirements

for proceeding ifp by submitting in this court a motion form without a signature

by an authorized officer certifying his account statement. See § 1915(a)(2)

(requiring submission of certified account statement). Therefore, we could deny

ifp on that ground, as well as on the basis of the frivolousness of his arguments.

-5-

his filing, with the exception of his failure to submit his account statement. 

Lastly, he contends that he informed the district court of his inability to obtain the

certified account statement. But he made no such claim in the district court until

he filed an application for leave to proceed ifp on appeal. In that application he

stated only that an account statement was unavailable, with no explanation as to

why.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing

Mr. Sheptin’s action without prejudice based upon his failure to comply with the

court’s order to submit his certified, six-month account statement.

After reviewing his contentions, we conclude that his arguments on appeal

are frivolous. We therefore DISMISS Mr. Sheptin’s appeal and DENY his motion

to proceed ifp. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (providing that “the court shall dismiss the

case at any time if [it] determines that [the appeal] is frivolous”).1

 Mr. Sheptin is

required to immediately remit the full amount of the filing fee. We remind him of

his obligation to pay the filing fee even though his appeal is dismissed. 

Appellate Case: 08-1082 Document: 01013377821 Date Filed: 08/06/2008 Page: 5 
-6-

See Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 2001) (dismissal of appeal

does not relieve appellant of obligation to pay appellate filing fee in full).

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 08-1082 Document: 01013377821 Date Filed: 08/06/2008 Page: 6