FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 15, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15023 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 1 6 7 5 - C V- MGC R O B E R T D . P I E R C E , J R ., P la in tif f- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F M I A M I , R O N H E N R Y , C o rp o r a l, T . H A R R I S O N , O f

f ic e r , D e fe n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , J O H N T I M O N E Y , C h ie f , e t a l., D e fe n d a n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 15, 2006)2

B efo re C A R N E S , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R o b ertP i erce fil ed a p ro se ci v i l ri g h t s co m p l ai n t , 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , ag ai n st the C i ty of

M i a m i , R on H e nr y , T . H a rr i s on, a nd t w o unna m e d de fe nda nt s . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t is s u e d a n O r d e ro f I n s tr u c tio n s to P r o S e L itig a n ts , a d v is in g P ie r c e to s e r ve the de fe nda nt s ’ s c ouns e l w i th c opi e s of a l l pl e a di ngs , t o s ubm i tc opi e s of s e r vi c e of

pr oc e s s w i th a l l f

i l i ngs , a nd t o r e vi e w the r ul e s of c i vi l pr oc e dur e , a nd w a r n in g th a t th e fa ilu r e to a c tiv e ly p u r s u e th e c a s e c o u ld r e s u lt in d is m is s a l. T h e r e a f te r , th e c o u r t is s u e d a n o r d e rto s h o w c a u s e b a s e d o n P ie r c e ’s fa ilu r e to s ubm i tac e r ti f

i c a t e of i nt e r e s t e d pa r ti e s , ac orpor a t e di s c l os ur e s t a t e m e nt , a nd a fo r m c o n c e r n in g c o n s e n t to am a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s ju r is d ic tio n . P ie r c e r e s p o n d e d to th e o r d e rw ith th e r e q u ir e d d o c u m e n ta tio n . T he defendant s a nsw er ed the com pl ai ntand fi l ed i nd i vi du al m ot i on s for sum m ar y j ud gm ent . P i er ce then m ov ed t o am end h i s c om pl ai nt , addi ng addi ti on al c l a i m s a nd de fe nda nt s . T he c our tgr a nt e d the m oti on t o a m e nd, ove rthe d e fe n d a n ts ’ o bje c tio n s . T he defendant s j oi nt l y m ov ed t o d i sm i ss the com pl ai ntbeca use s um m ar y j ud gm entw as pend i ng . T he courtdeni ed the m ot i on t o d i sm i ss , concl ud i ng that the a m e nde d c om pl a i ntr e nde r e d the s um m a r y j udgm e ntm oti ons m oot . T heLocal Rule 7.1C provides, “ [e] ach pa rty opposing a

motion shall serve an opposing 1 memorandum of law no later than ten day s after

serviceof the motion . . . failure to do so may be sufficient causefor grantingthe motion by default.” 3 de fe nda nt s the n f

i l e d aj oi nts um m a r y j udgm e ntm oti on, a dopti ng the i rpr e vi ous ar gu m ent s. P i er ce di d n otre spon d t o the m ot i on t o d i sm i ss or for s um m ar y ju d g m e n t. O n A ugus t5, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a n or de rt o s how c a us e w hy the c om pl a i nts houl d notbe di s m i s s e d be c a us e P i e r c e ha d notr e s ponde d t o the m ot i on s. P i er ce di d n otre spon d t o the order t o sho w ca use, and the court d i s mi s s e d th e c o mp l a i n tb y d e fa u l to n A u g u s t1 6 p u r s u a n tt o Lo c a l Ru l e 7 . 1 C. 1 T he fol l ow i ng day, P i er ce subm i tt ed hi s r es po nse t o the order t o sho w ca use, e xpl a i ni ng tha the ha d be e n i n tr e a tm e ntforpos t - tr a um a ti c s tr e s s di s or de ra tthe V et er ans A dm i ni stra ti on H ospi t al and w as no tre l ea se d u nt i l m i d-Jul y. H e s t at ed th atth e o rd er w as n o tm ai l ed u n ti l A u g u st1 2 an d h e d i d n o trecei v e i tu n ti l A u g u st 1 6 . H e fu rth er ad m i tt ed th ath e h ad n o treal i zed a resp o n se w as req u i red b ecau se th e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n w a s th e s a m e a s th e o r ig in a l m o tio n s th e d e fe n d a n ts ha d f i l e d pr e vi ous l y a nd t o w hi c h he ha d r e s ponde d. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the re spon se as un ti m el y a nd m oo t , no ti ng thati tw as the se cond ti m e the courthad is s u e d P ie r c e a n o r d e rto s h o w c a u s e . O n a ppe a l , P i e r c e a r gue s tha tthe c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e ti on by di s m i s s i ng4

h is c o m p la in t w ith o u t c o n s id e r in g h is e x p la n a tio n , w a r n in g h im o f th e p o s s ib ility o f d e fa u l to rd i s m i s s a l , o rd e t e r m i n i n g wh e th e rl e s s e rs a n c ti o n s wo u l d s u f f i c e . He a ls o r e m in d s th is c o u r t o f h is p r o s e s ta tu s . D i s m i s s a l forw a ntof

pr os e c uti on unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 41( b) i s w i thi n the tr ia l c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n a n d c a n b e r e v e r s e d o n ly fo ra n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . M cK el v ey v . A T & T T ech . , In c. , 7 8 9 F . 2 d 1 5 1 8 , 1 5 2 0 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ); see al so G ra tt on v. G re atA m er i ca n C om m un i ca ti on s, 17 8 F . 3d 13 73 , 13 74 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). D i sm i ss al i s ase vere sa nct i on thati s app ropri at e “ ‘ on l y i n the fa ce of a cl ear reco rd o f d el ay o r co n tu m aci o u s co n d u ctb y th e p l ai n ti ff’ an d ‘ w h ere l ess dr a s ti c s a nc ti ons a r e una va i l abl e . ’ ” M c K e l ve y , 789 F . 2d a t1520 ( c i t a ti on om i tt e d) . “ A f

i ndi ng of s uc h e xtr e m e c i r c um s t a nc e s ne c e s s a r y t o s uppor tthe san ct i o n o f d i sm i ssal m u st , ata m i n i m u m , b e b ased o n ev i d en ce o f w i l l fu l d el ay; s im p le n e g lig e n c e d o e s n o t w a rr a n t d is m is s a l.” I d . H e r e , a l though the c our tha d w a r ne d P i e r c e tha tdi s m i s s a l w a s pos s i bl e for th e fa ilu r e to p r o s e c u te , th is e x tr e m e s a n c tio n w a s n o t w a rr a n te d in th is c a s e . P i e r c e r e s ponde d t o the or de rt o s how c a us e one da y a f t e rthe ti m e pe r i od e xpi r e d, and exp l ai ned thathe had n otre ce i ved the order unt i l then. In addi ti on , the court m a de no f

i ndi ng tha tl e s s e rs a nc ti ons w oul d nots uf f i c e . N ot abl y , a l though the c our tw a r ne d P i e r c e tha tfa i l ur e t o pr os e c ut e c oul d r e s ul ti n di s m i s s a l , the r e i s noIn M itchell, thi s c ourt vac ate d andremande d a

c ourt ’s di smi ssal ba se d o n thefailureto 2 comply with a l ocal rule beca

use there was no evidenc e that the pl aintiff knew about the rule. Here, in contrast, Pierc e had been wa rnedabout failure to prosecute and heknew that a responseto a motion to di smiss or for summary judgm en t was proper bec ause hefiled such responses to the earlier motions. Pi erc e wa s not, however , instructed re g ardingthe local r ule under which the c ourt dis mis se d his c omp laint . 5 ev id en ce th at P ierc e w as m ad e a w ar e o f L o ca l R u le 7 .1 C , th e b as is fo r th e c o u rt’s or de r . C f . M i t c he l l v. I nm a n, 682 F . 2d 886 ( 11th C i r . 1982) ; s e e a l s o M oor e v. 2 F l ori da, 70 3 F . 2d 51 6 (11 th C i r. 19 83 ). P i er ce pu rs ued h i s c l ai m s a nd re spon ded qui c kl y t o the pr e vi ous or de rt o s how c a us e . T hus , the r e w a s no e vi de nc e of w illf u l c o n te m p t o rc o n tu m a c io u s c o n d u c t n e c e s s a r y to d is m is s th e c o m p la in t. M o r e o v e r , a lth o u g h p r o s e litig a n ts a r e s till b o u n d b y r u le s o f p r o c e d u r e , th is courthas e xp l ai ned thatthey s ho ul d n otbe hel d t o the sa m e l evel of kn ow l edge as a n a tt or ne y , a nd, the r e for e , a ddi ti ona l noti c e m a y be a ppr opr i a t e . S a m ps on v. F ul t on C ounty J a i l , 157 F e d. A ppx. 242 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( unpubl i s he d) ( c i ti ng G u n n v . N e w s o m e , 8 8 1 F .2 d 9 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) , a n d M itc h e ll, 6 8 2 F .2 d a t 8 8 7 ) . T he appel l ee s a ss er tthatdi sm i ss al w as prop erbeca use P i er ce exhi bi t ed m ore than n egl i gence i n the prosecuti on of hi s c l ai m s. T he re cord ref l ec t s, ho w ever , that P i er ce prom pt l y c om pl i ed w i th the court ’ s order s t o sho w ca use, and h e has expl ai ned w hy he fa i l ed t o res po nd t o the earl i erorder. T hi s s i tuat i on appears m ore l i ke negl i gence than w i l ful cont em pt . T here fore , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ct c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e ti on be c a us e i tdi d notde t e r m i ne w he the rl e s s e rs a nc ti ons6

w o u ld s u f

f ic e , a n d th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e o f w ilf u l c o n te m p t o rd e la y . A c c o r d in g ly , w e V A C A T E a n d R E M A N D .