## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2882

___________ Elliott Holly, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Amy Anderson; Deborah Konieska; * Tony Kaufenberg; Mike Smith; * [PUBLISHED] Sandi Davis, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 27, 2006 Filed: November 2, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Elliott Holly appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action prior to service for failure to comp ly with a court order. We reverse.
While civilly confined in a Minnesota sex-offender treatment program, Holly filed an application to proceed in form a pauperis (IFP) and a complaint against treatment center employees for alleged civil rights violations. A magistrate judge granted Holly IFP status, and ordered the court clerk to issue summons and the United States Marshall to serve a copy of th e summons and complaint upon defendants,-2- noting that all costs of service would be advanced by the United States. Holly thereafter sought to file an amended complaint, which the magistrate judge struck on June 28, 2004, for failure to comply with a local rule. In this June 28 order, the magistrate judge afforded Holly until Ju ly 23, 2004, to file another amended complaint (if he wished to do so); ordere d Holly to submit one additional copy of his complaint (original or amended) for each de fendant he named; and warned Holly that failure to comply could result in dismissa l. On July 27, 2004, Holly informed the court that he had been moved from the treat ment center to prison and did not have his legal materials with him. About six week s later, because Holly had not submitted any extra copies of his complaint, the districtcourt dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for the plaintiff’s deliberate failure to comply with a court order. See Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. , 116 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (8th Ci r. 1997); Brown v. Frey , 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986). We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing this action, seeRodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo. , 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of revi ew), because the record does not show that Holly deliberately failed to comply w ith the June 28 order to submit extra copies of his complaint. Holly may have effec tively responded to the order in his July 27 filing by informing the court that he no longe r had his legal materi als. Moreover, it is not clear whether Holly even retained a copy of his complaint (or his attempted amended complaint) after he filed it, becau se after dismissal, he requested from the district court a copy of his complaint so that he could amend it as directed.
Finally, Holly was in state custody and wa s indigent: the record reflects that he had only $2.87 in his state account at th e time he was granted IFP status. Thus it is likely that he did not have the means to make additional copies of his complaint. In these circumstances, we conclude th at dismissing Holly’s case--even without prejudice--for failure to provide copies of his complaint was unduly harsh and was-3- contrary to the spirit of the IFP statute unde r which Holly was proceeding, because the district court should not require a person w ho has been granted IFP status to prepare copies of the complaint for service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (when plaintiff is proceeding IFP, court officers issue and serv e all process and perform all duties).
Accordingly, we reverse, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We deny all pending motions.

______________________________