P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 20374 Su m m ar yC al endar

JI RR O N D EM O N CU RT I S Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. N A T HA N I E L Q U A R T E R MA N , D I R E C T O R , T E XA S D E P A R T ME N T OF CR I M I NALJ US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON R espon den t

- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 06- C V

- 4042

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d S T E W A R T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Ji rron D em on C u rt i s, T exas pri soner # 118 205 1, w as convi ct ed bya j u ry of aggr avat ed ro bber y and sent enc ed t o 65 year s of i m pri so nm ent
. Th i s appeal ari ses f rom t h e di st ri c tc o u rt ’ s di sm i ssalw i t h ou tprej u di ce of C u rt i s’ s pet i t i on f

or a w r it o f h a b e a s c o r p u s p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a fte rC u r tis fa ile dto re p ly t o t h e respond en t ’ s sum m ary j u dg m en t m ot i on w i t h i n 30 days. C u rt i s a rg u es t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d it s di s c r e t i o n in d i s m i s s i ng hi s pe t i t i o n f o rw ant United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 20374

2 of prosecuti on becau se his d e la y i n f i l i n g t h e ordered res pon se w as not att ribu t able t o ei t h er purp osef u ldel ay or w i l l f

u ldi sobedience. Adistrict co u rt ha s th e a u th ority to dism i ss a n action f or fail u re to p r o s e c u t e o rfo rfa ilu r e to co m p lyw ith a n yco u r t o r d e r . F ED . R . C IV
. P. 4 1 (b ). The c o ur tpo s s e s s e s t he i nhe r e nta ut ho r i t y t o di s m i s s t he a c t i o n su asp o n tein th e a b s e n c e o f am o tio n b yth e d e fe n d a n t. Mart i n ez v . Joh n son , 104 F. 3d 769, 7 7 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e d is m is s a l o f a n a c tio n p u r s u a n t t o R u le 4 1 (b ) is
r e v ie w e dfo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Mc C ul lough v. Lynaugh , 835 F. 2d 1126, 1127 ( 5t h C i r . 1988)

. Adi sm i ss alw i t houtprej udi c e gener al l y do es notope r at e a s an adj udi c at i o n o n t he m e r i t s ; ho w e ve r , w he r e t he ap pl i c ab l e s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns proba bl y bars f

u rt h er li t i gati on , t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalsh ou l d be revi ew ed
a s if th e d is m is s a lh a d b e e n w ith p r eju d ic e . G r ayv . Fi d. Ac c e pt anc eCor

p. , 6 3 4 F .2 d2 2 6 , 2 2 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ); F ED . R . C IV . P RO
. 41(b). T h e parti es agree th a t C u r tis ’ s s t a t u t e o f lim ita tio n s p e r io de x p ir e dd u r in gth e p e n d e n c yo f h is h a b e a s p r o c e e d in g s a n dth a tt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l s h o u ldb e p r o p e r ly vi ew ed as a dis m i ssalw i t h prej u di ce. W e concur. A di s m i s s alw i t h pr ej udi c e i s a n e xt r e m e sancti o n t hatde pr ive s t he p e tit io n e ro f th e o p p o r tu n ityto p u r s u e h is cla im fu r th e r . Mi l lan v . USAA G e n. Ind em . Co. , 5 4 6 F .3d 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); G r ay , 634 F. 2d at227. C on seq u en tly, d i stri ct cou rts h a ve l i m i ted d i scre ti on to d i sm i ss a cl a i m w ith prej u di ce, an d thi s c ou rtw i l laf f i rm such a di sm i ssalon l y w h ere the h i st ory of t he c as e indic at e s b o t h ( 1) ac l e arr e c o r d o f pur po s e f

ulde l ayo rc o nt um ac i o us cond u ctby the peti t i on er an d (2) an exp ress deter m i n ati on t h at t h e best inter est s of

j u st i ce w ou l d n otbe bett er s erved byl essersancti on s. Mi l lan , 546 F. 3d at326; Lo ng v . Si m m o ns , 7 7 F. 3d 87 8, 88 0 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 96 )

. I n a ddit i o n,
w h en af f i rm i n g di sm i ssal s w i t h prej u di ce, t h i s c ou rtha s usu al l y f ou n d at l east
o ne o f t hr e e a gg r av at i ng fac t o r s w hi c h i nc l ude ( 1) t he e xt e ntto w hi c h t he pl ai nt i f f, no thi s a t t o r ne y, w as pe r s o nall y r e s po ns ibl e f o rt he de l ay , ( 2) t heN o. 07- 20374

3 degr ee of

ac t ualpr ej udi c e t o t he def endant , and ( 3 ) w h eth er t he del ay w as c a u s e db yin te n tio n a l co n d u c t. Mi l lan , 546 F. 3d at326. Th er e i s nota c l earr ec or d of purpo se f

uldel ay o rc ont um ac i ous c onductby C urt i s. Thi s c our t ’ s c as es have r ec ogni ze d t hata de l ay w ar r ant i ng di sm i ss al
w i t h prej udi c e m ustbe l ongert han a few m ont hs and i s c harac t er i ze d by

“‘ sign i fi ca n t pe ri od s of t ota li n a ctivity. ’” Id

. at326- 27 (c i t i ng McNe alv . Papa s an , 8 4 2 F .2 d7 8 7 , 7 9 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 )); Jo hn v

. Lo ui s i ana , 8 2 8 F

. 2 d11 2 9 , 11 3 1 ( 5 th C i r. 198 7)

. I n fact , di sm i ssal s w i t h prej u di ce h ave general l y been reservedf or

“‘ eg reg i ou s an dsom eti m es o u trag eo u s d elay s. ’” Mi l lan , 5 46 F. 3da t3 27 ( quo t i ng R ogers v. KrogerCo. , 669 F. 2d 317, 321 ( 5t h C i r . 1982) )

. A del ay o f l es s t han 45 days pas se d bet w ee n t he f i l i ng of the sum m ar y j udgm entm ot i on o n M ar c h 22, 2007, and t he di sm i ss alof t he ac t i on o n M ay 4, 2007. M o re o v e r, ap a rty ’ s n e g li g e n ce -re g a rd less of how carel ess or in consi derated oe s n ot m a k e con d u ct con tu m a ci ou s; “i n stea di t i s th e stu b b orn re s is te n ce to
a u th ority w h i ch ju sti fi es a dism i ssa lw i th pr ejud i ce.” Mi l lan , 546 F. 3d at327. C u r tis a s s e r ts th a t h is u n tim e ly r e s p o n s e w a s a tt r ib u ta b le to th e lo c k d o w n o f h is pr i s o n uni t , w hi c h l e f thi m w i t h no l e ga l ai d o rl e ga ls upp l i e s . Al t ho ughi tm i ght h a v e b e e n u n r e a s o n a b l e ori mp r u d e n tf o rC u r t i s t o a s s u me t h a tt h e l o c k d o wn excused hi s ti m e l y com pl i an ce w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s or der t o f i l e a res pon se t o th e su m m a ryj u d g m e n t m o tion , th e om iss ion w a s “m o re am a tte r o f n e g li gen ce th a n p u rp ose ful de l a y o r con tu m a ci ou sn ess . ” Morri s v. O cean Sys. , I n c. , 7 3 0 F .2d 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). F u rt h erm ore, t h i s c ou rtha s gen eral l y h el d t h at the di st ri ctcourtabu ses i t s di scr et i on w h en i tdi sm i sses a case w i t h prej u di ce w h ere t h e petit i on er “f ail [ s]
on l y to co m p l y w i th a few cou rt ord ers.” Be r r yv . CIGNA / RSI

- CIGNA , 975 F. 2d 11 88, 1 192 & n. 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2) (c i t i ng c as e s )

. The fail ur e t o r e ply t o t he
r e s p o n d e n t’s s u m m a r yju d g m e n tm o tio n a p p e a r s to b e th e o n lyin s ta n c e in
w h i ch C u rt i s di d n otcom pl y w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s or ders.N o. 07- 20374

4 In ad di t i on , t h e rec ord i s s i l en ton w h et h er t h e distr ict court consi dered le s s e r s a n c tio n s a n d d e te r m in e d th e m to b e fu tile

. S ee McNe al , 842 F. 2d at793- 94. A l so, non e of

t h e usu alaggrav ati n g fact ors ap pea r t o be present i n t h i s c ase. S ee Mi l lan , 546 F. 3d at327. Acc or di ngl y, t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss alw as an a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se eLo ng , 7 7 F .3 da t 8 8 0
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is her eby VA C A TE D and t he c as e i s R E M A N D E D f orf urt herproce ed i ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t hi s o pi ni o n.