UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 7/3/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VINCENT A. APODACA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JUDY UPHOFF, individually and in

her official capacity as Director,

Wyoming Department of Corrections; 

ROBERT E. ORTEGA, individually 

and in his official capacity as Deputy

Director, Wyoming Department of

Corrections; DUANE SHILLINGER,

individually and in his official

capacity as Warden, State Penitentiary

Wyoming Department of Corrections;

BILL HETTGAR, individually and in

his official capacity State Penitentiary

Medical Administrator, Wyoming

Department of Corrections; JAMES

FERGUSON, individually and in his

official capacity as State Penitentiary

Deputy Warden, Wyoming Department

of Corrections; ARCHIE KIRSCH,

individually and in his official

capacity as State Penitentiary Medical

Doctor, Wyoming Department of

Corrections,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-8070

(D.C. No. 95-CV-10)

(D. Wyo.)
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

-2-

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, BRIGHT,** and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Vincent A. Apodaca appeals from an order of the district court

dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to

prosecute. We affirm.

The district court may dismiss an action for lack of prosecution if, after

consideration of all the relevant factors, it concludes dismissal is the most

appropriate sanction to satisfy the interests of justice. See, e.g., Ehrenhaus v.

Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920-21 (10th Cir. 1992). “Determination of the correct

sanction . . . is a fact-specific inquiry that the district court is best qualified to
-3-

make.” Id. at 920. Therefore, we review the district court’s sanction of dismissal

in this case for abuse of discretion. Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340

(10th Cir. 1994).

The district court reviewed both the magistrate judge’s recommendation

and the record and concluded that the history of the suit “clearly demonstrates

plaintiff’s continuing obstreperous lack of cooperation in the discovery process

and a cavalier disregard for the rules of this Court governing discovery.” R. Vol.

II, tab 55 at 4. The court also noted that plaintiff had made no attempt to justify

his actions as requested in the magistrate judge’s show cause order.

We have reviewed the record. While plaintiff offers reasons for his

actions, these reasons are specious. Plaintiff has presented no valid reasons either

before the district court or before this court why the sanction of dismissal of his

action for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of

Wyoming is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the court

Per curiam