F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 2 8, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1409 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 04-10042 -CV -KMM ST EV ENLE CKL IT NE R, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us RO G E R WA GN O N , L ie ute nant, CHRIS TOPHER GANEM, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es . Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (D ec em be r 28, 200 5)
Be fo re D U BIN A , CA RN E S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Appe llant S te ve n L ec kli tne r ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r dis m iss ing his
ca se w ithpr ej udi ce a nd i ts o rd er gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of som e of the de fe ndants in the c as e. W e af fi rm in pa rt , va cate in pa rt

a nd r em an d. I. This is an action arising out o f the ar rest of L ecklitner in the City of K ey W es t onJun e 24, 200 0, f or ba tte ry on the lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r, r es ist ing a rr es t
w ith out vio le nc e an d di sor de rl y

c ondu ct . L ec kli tne r br ough t hi s a ct iona ga ins t the Ci ty of K ey W es t and thr ee K ey

W es t po lic e of

fi ce rs und er

42 U
. S. C. § 19 83. T he district court granted summ ary j udgm ent in favor of the City of K ey W est and as to C ount I I in f av or of O ff ic er D onna W ag non an d a s to Co unt I V in favor

of O ff ic er Ro be rt W ag non. I n a ll oth er

r es pe ct s, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e de fe ndants ’ m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. Su bse que ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt se t the c as e fo r tr ia l. I t w as the f ourth c as e on the c ourt’ s tr ia l c al en dar an d w as te nta tiv el y sc he dul ed

on June 20, 200 5. T he district court specifically advised the parties that there w ere three cr im inal cases ahead of the instant case on the calendar and that if the three crim inal cases
co lla pse d th e part ie s inthe c as e shou ld b e pr ep ar ed to pr oc ee d a s e ar ly

a s June 13, 2005
. L ec kli tne r’ s c ouns el , Co rn el ius S hiv er , ind ic at ed to the c ourt tha t this c oul d cause him

a problem , but said “ OK .” A fter this exchange, Le cklitner did no t file a3

m otion for continuance or a m otion to be excused from the first w eek of the trial doc ke t. O n June 13, 200 5, the c le rk ’ s of fi ce c ont ac te d c ouns el f

or the part ie s to inform them that trial w ould begin the following d ay at 1:00 p.m
. Ne ither Shiver nor Lec klitn er a

ppeared for tr ial at that tim e. T he defendants m oved for an entry of an order dism issin g the case. A fter som e discussio n, the district court granted th e m ot io n a nd di sm is se d Lec kl it ne r’s cas e wit h p reju di ce. II. T his c ourt r ev ie w s de novo a di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. Underwood v. P erry County Comm ’n , ___ F
. 3d _ __ , ___ ( N o. 04- 1171 3) ( 11th Ci r. 20 05 ). This court review s for an abuse of discretion the district court’ s order di sm is si ng th e cas e wit h p reju di ce. G ofo rth v . O we ns , 766 F
. 2d 1 533, 153 5 ( 11th Ci r. 198 5) ; Jo nes v . G raha m , 709 F. 2d 14 57, 1458 (11t h Cir. 1983 ). III . W e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the Ci ty of K ey W es t and i n f

av or of se ve ra l of

the pol ic e of

fi ce rs in pa rt

ba se d onit s well -rea so ne d o rd er fi le d o n M ay 26 , 20 05
. Af ter re viewing the record, however, we conclude that the dis trict court ab us edit s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng th e d efen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s wi th pre jud ic e.4

Inr ea din g th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r of dis m iss al f

ile d onJun e 21, 200 5, a nd the transcript of June 14, 2005, we are unable to find any consideration bythe district
co ur t o f an y

les se r sa nc ti on s, as req ui redby ourcir cu it pre ced en t. Se e G ofo rth , 766 F. 2d a t 15 35; Jones , 709 F
. 2d a t 14 58. N ei the r the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r nor its statem ents at the hearing on Jun e 14th ascertain the extent to which L ecklitner or his couns el w as personally responsibl e for the delay , the degre e of ac tual prej udice to the defendants, and whether the delay wa s the result of intentio nal
co nduc t by

e ith er L ec kli tne r or

his c ouns el
. A cc or din gly , w e va cate the or de r of dis m iss al a nd r em an d th is c as e fo r furthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s opi nio n. AFFIRMED in pa rt, VACATED in pa rt, a nd REMANDED.