T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT PH I L I P B U T L E R , i n hi s per s onal c a p a c i t y, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. J A M E S B U T I E R R E S, i n hi s per s onal c a p a c i t y, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1407 (D . o f C o lo .) (D . C . N o . 0 6 -B -51 8 (M E H ))

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES C i rcui tJudg es. ** Phi l i p B ut l erappea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al w i t h pr ej udi ce of hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 claim fo r fa il u re to fo ll o w an ea rl ier co u rto rde r reg ard ing B u tl er’s i n form a p auperis p a ym e n t p lan . S in c e th e re w a s n o sh o w in g B u tler w ill f u lly vi ol at ed the or der , w e V A C A T E t he di s m i s s al and R E M A N D forr econs i der at i on.I tfur t hernot ed thati tcoul d di s m i s s t he ac t i on i f B ut l erfai l ed t o s t ay 1 curr ent w i t h h i s pay m ent obl i gati on s i n an ypri or act i on s. -2- I . Backg r ound Phi l i p B ut l erw as gr ant ed l eave t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris on a § 1983 c l a i m i n M a r c h o f

2 0 0 6 . A p a yme n tp l a n wa s e s t a b l i s h e d p e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (b ). T h e c o u rt e x p lain e d it w o u ld d ism iss th e a c tio n w ith o u t p reju d ice if t he pr i s onerfai l ed t o m ake hi s m ont hl ypaym entorfai l ed t o s how caus e as t o w hy h e c o u l d n o tp a y. 1 A f ter B u tler fa iled to m a k e m o n th lyp a ym e n ts fo r M a ya n d Ju n e o n h is p rese n t cl aim an d fa il ed to sh o w ca u se fo r th e m issi n g p ay m en ts, a se co n d co u rt o rd e r iss u e d o n Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 0 6 d ire c ted B u tler “ b yth e 1 5 th d a yo f e a c h m o n th her eaf t er ” t o ei ther( 1) m ake the r equi r ed mont hl ypaym ent , or( 2) fi l e a c er t i fi ed copyof hi s i nm at e trus tfund ac counts t at ementdemonst r at i ng w hyhe nee d not m ake pa ym entunder28 U . S. C . § 1915( b) ( 2) . D oc. 18 at2. T he courtw arned t hatfai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he or dercoul d l ead t o di s m i s s al of hi s cas e w i t hout f u rt h e r n o tic e . O n A ugus t10, 2006, t he magi s t r at e j udge w ho i s s ued the J ul y13 or der r ecomm ended di s m i s s i ng B ut l er ’ s cl ai m w i t h pr ej udi ce forfai l ur e t o compl y . T he m agi s t r at e j udge expl ai ned the J ul yor derr equi r ed paym entfr om B ut l erora s how of ca us e “byt he 15th dayof ea ch mont h ( w hi ch w oul d i ncl ude the mont h of J ul y ) ” and But l erhad notcompl i ed forthe mont h of J ul y . D oc. 30 at1. T he-3-

di s t r i ctcour tacc ept ed the magi s t r at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on and di s m i s s ed the a c tio n w ith p reju d ice . B u tler s u b se q u e n tlyc o m p lied w ith th e o rd e r fo r th e m o n th of A ugus t . T he di s t r i ctcourthel d t hatB ut l erhad nots how n “the exi s t ence of a re a so n e d , n o n f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t . . . in s u p p o rt o f th e iss u e s ra ise d o n a p p e a l” a n d d e n ied B u tler’ s M o tio n fo r L e a v e to P ro c e e d o n A p p e a l in fo rm a p a u p e ris pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e R ul e 24. D oc. 39. B ut l er renew s hi s in fo rm a p a up e ris m o ti o n to this co u rtan d ap p ea ls th e low er c o u rt di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m w i t h pr ej udi ce. I I . D i s cus s i on D ism iss a l w ith p reju d ice “ re p re se n ts a n e x tre m e sa n c tio n a p p ro p ria te o n ly i n cas es of w i l l ful m i s conduct . ” E hr enhaus v. R eynolds , 9 6 5 F .2 d 9 1 6 , 9 2 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). It d o e s n o t ap p e a r th e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d w h e th e r th e Ju ly or der ’ s l anguage r equi r i ng paym entora s how of ca us e “byt he 15th dayof ea ch m o n th h ere af

ter” inc lud es th e m o n th o f Ju lyas th e m ag istrate jud g e c lai m ed . If t he pl ai n l anguage of the or derdi d noti ncl ude the mont h of J ul yorw as am b igu o u s as to Ju ly ’s i n clus ion , B u tl er d id n o t w il lfu ll yv iolate th e o rde r. In a d d iti o n , itis u n c lea r f ro m th e re c o rd w h e th e r B u tler r e c e iv e d th e o rd e r in tim e to compl yw i t h t he J ul y15 deadl i ne, even i f the or deri ncl uded J ul y . W e r emand th is iss u e fo r th e d istric t co u rt to c o n sid e r w h e th e r d ism iss a l w ith pr ej udi ce w as w arr ant ed.“A ft erpaym entof the i ni t i al par t i al fi l i ng fee , t he pr i s oners hal l be 2 req u ir ed to m ak e m o n thlyp ay m en ts of 2 0 p erc en t of

the p rec ed ing m o n th’s i ncome cr edi t ed t o t he pr i s oner ’ s acc ount . T he age ncyhavi ng cus t odyof the pr i s oners hal l forw ar d paym ent s fr om t he pr i s oner ' s acc ountt o t he cl er k of the co u rtea ch ti m e the am o u n t i n the a cc o u n t exc ee d s $ 1 0 u n ti l th e fil ing fe es a re p aid.” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (b)(2 ). -4- B u tler f u rth e r c h a llen g e s th e leg a lityo f th e Ju lyo rd e r, co n ten d in g it confl i ct s w i t h 28 U . S. C . § 1915( b) ( 2) . T he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed and r ej ect ed B u tl er’s arg u m en t. W e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt . B u tl er a rgu ed § 1 9 1 5 (b)(2 )’s com m and t hat the ag encyho l ding a pri soner forw ard the p ri soner’ s i n f o r ma p a up e ris p a ym e n ts c o n flicte d w ith th e o rd e r re q u irin g B u tler, th e p riso n e r, to m ake paym ent or s how caus e. B ut§ 1915( b) ( 2) al s o cl ear l ys t at es “the pr i s oner 2 sh all b e re q u ir ed to m ak e m o n thlyp ay m en ts . . . cre d it ed to the p ri so n er’s ac co u n t. ” T h e m ag istrate jud g e d id n o t err i n req u ir ing the p ri so n er to m ak e su re hi s fee s w er e pai d ort o expl ai n w hyt heyw er e notpai d. I f the C ol or ado D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s w here he is held i s r efusi ng t o fo rw ard the p aym ents , B u tler m a yo ffe r th a t re f u sa l as c a u se fo r fa ilu re to p a y— th e re b yc o m p ly in g w ith the o rde r. I I I . C oncl usi on A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tforl eave t o pr ocee d on appea l w i t houtt he pr epaym ent of fe es under28 U . S. C . § 1915 i s G R A N T E D . A n as s es s m entor derhas al r eady b e e n e n ter e d u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (b ) d ire c tin g P h ili p B u tler to m a k e p a rtial p a ym e n ts t ow ar d t he fi l i ng fee . W e r emi nd B ut l erof hi s obl i gat i on t o cont i nue maki ng-5-

p a rtial p a ym e n ts o f

th e a p p e llate fili n g fe e p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (b ), in a d d iti o n to h is p a rtial p a ym e n ts fo r h is § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n b e lo w , u n til th e e n tire fe e is pai d. W e V A C A T E t he di s m i s s al w i t h pr ej udi ce a nd R E M A N D forcons i der at i on byt he di s t r i ctcour tw hetherB ut l erw i l l ful l yvi ol at ed the pl ai n l anguage of the J ul yor derand w hetherdi s m i s s al w i t h pr ej udi ce w as appr opr i at e. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m ot hyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge