*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 20, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA E. WINGFIELD,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-1419

v. (D. of Colo.)

PATRICK J. SULLIVAN

DETENTION FACILITY, 

ARAPAHOE COUNTY

DEPARTMENT FACILITY,

BUREAU CHIEF SPENCE,

ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, and SHERIFF GRAYSON,

Defendants-Appellees

(D.C. No. 07-cv-1544-ZLW)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.** 
1

 Because Wingfield proceeds pro se, we review his pleadings and filings

liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon,

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

2

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) provides that “[a] prisoner seeking to bring a civil

action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding without prepayment of

fees or security therefor . . . shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period

immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained

from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was

confined.”

-2-

Proceeding pro se,

1

 Joshua E. Wingfield appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action. Wingfield’s case was

dismissed because he failed to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund

account within the prescribed time period. We conclude the district court

properly dismissed Wingfield’s action and therefore AFFIRM.

I. 

Wingfield complains of the way correctional officers at the Arapahoe

County Detention Facility treated him while under detention. In the district court

and on appeal, he alleges multiple violations of his due process rights. The

district court dismissed Wingfield’s case without prejudice after his failure to

cure a deficiency in his petition within the 30 days mandated by the court. 

Specifically, Wingfield did not provide a certified copy of his inmate trust fund

account, which was required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for

Wingfield to proceed without prepayment of court filing fees.2
-3-

II. 

We review the district court’s dismissal of Wingfield’s case for an abuse of

discretion. Joplin v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 671 F.2d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 1982) (per

curiam); Montana v. Hargett, 212 F. App’x 770, 773 (10th Cir. 2007). 

A district court may exercise broad discretion in determining whether to

dismiss a civil action without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders. 

See, e.g., 8 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 41.53 (3d ed.

2007) (“When the dismissal is without prejudice, an abuse of discretion will

generally not be found, since the plaintiff may simply refile the suit.”). 

“[D]ismissal is an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court

orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules.” United States ex rel.

Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Hargett,

212 F. App’x at 773 (affirming dismissal without prejudice of prisoner’s civil

action because prisoner failed to file a certified copy of his trust fund account

statement as ordered by the court). 

On appeal, Wingfield raises thirteen discrete claims related to his treatment

in the Arapahoe detention facility. Unfortunately, he fails to explain how the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing his case. Our independent review

of the record indicates the district court provided Wingfield ample opportunity to

comply with the court’s order. The court provided Wingfield 30 days to file a

certified copy of his account statement and warned him that if he failed to do so,
-4-

his case would be dismissed. In following the requirements of the PLRA and

allowing Wingfield sufficient time to comply with its order, the court did not

abuse its discretion.

III.

Because Wingfield points to no error in the district court’s order and we

find none in our independent review, we AFFIRM the court’s decision. We also

DENY Wingfield’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Wingfield is

obligated to continue making partial payments until all fees have been paid. 

Entered for the Court,

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge