## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 25 48

__ __ __ __ __ _ Dav id Eug en e Bai le y , *
* App el la nt , *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn * Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. W il li am McKi nn ey , Doct or , Offic ia l *
an d In di vi du al Cap aci ty; Unk no wn * [UNPUBLISHED] Harro d, Den ti st , Offic ia l an d * In di vi du al Cap aci ty; Lis a Sp ai n, * Med ic al Dire ct or , Offic ia l an d * In di vi du al Cap aci ty; Kim Unk no wn, * Nur se , Offic ia l an d In di vi du al * Cap aci ty; Carl a Unk no wn, Nu rs e, * Offi ci al an d In di vi du al Cap aci ty, *
* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 28 , 20 11 Fi le d: Octo be r 26 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re SM ITH, ARNOLD, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Fo rm er Mi ss ou ri in m at e Dav id Bai le y ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced u r e 4 1 ( b ) di sm is sa l of hi s act io n wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. Thedi sm is sa l was ba se d on hi s fai lu re to co m pl y wit h a n o r d e r t o pa y an in it ia l pa rti al fil in g fe e wit hi n t hi rty days.

Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di sm is sa l of Mr. Bai le y ’s act io n was
an ab us e of di sc ret io n be cau se --b as ed on hi s cert ifi ed in m at e acco un t st at em en ts --i t ap pe ars th at hi s fa il ur e to m ak e an in it ia l pa rti al pa y m en t o n t im e was du e to a la ck of av ai la bl e f

un ds , a nd be cau se th e co ur t ne it he r in qu ire d as to whe th er Mr. Bai le y ha d at te m pt ed to co m

pl y wit h th e co ur t’s or de r no r pr ov id ed hi m an op po rtu ni t y to

ex pl a i n h i s fai lu re to m ak e a ti m el y in it ia l pa y m en t. See 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 (b )(1 ) (s ta ti ng th at co ur t sh al l co ll ect i n i t i a l p art ia l fil in g fee “ whe n fu nd s ex is t” ), (b )(4 ) (p ro vi di ng th at pr is on er sh al l no t be pr oh ib it ed fro m br in gi ng ci vi l act io n be cau se he la ck s as se ts an d m ean s to pa y in it ia l pa rti al fil in g fee) ; Tay lo r v. Dela to or e, 28 1 F.3 d 84 4 , 8 5 0 (9 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (fo r pr is on ers who se pr io r acco un t ba la nc es res ul te d in

as se ss m en t of in it ia l f

e e , b u t who do no t ha ve fu nd s av ai la bl e whe n pa y m en t is

or de red , § 19 15 (b )(4 ) sh ou ld pr ot ect th em fro m ha vi ng th ei r cas es di smi s s e d fo r
no n- pa y m en t); Hatc he t v. Nett le s, 20 1 F.3 d 65 1, 65 2- 53 (5 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m ) (h ol di ng th at it was ab us e of di sc ret io n fo r di st ric t co ur t to di sm is s act io n fo r fai lu re to co m pl y wit h in it ia l pa rti al fil in g fee or de r, wit ho ut m ak in g so m e in qu iry reg ard in g

w he th er pr is on er ha d co m pl ie d wit h or de r by su bm it ti ng req ui red co ns en t fo rm w ith in ti m e al lo wed fo r co m

pl ia nc e); se e al so Bo y le v. Am

. Aut o. Serv ., In c., 57 1 F.3 d 73 4, 74 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). In ad di ti on , it ap pe ars th at th e di st ric t co ur t

rece iv ed an d acce pt ed Mr. Bai le y ’s in it ia l pa rti al fil in g fee aft er th e co ur t di sm is se d hi s ac ti on

.

Acco rd in gl y , w e va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s Ru le 41 (b ) di sm is sa l, an d we
rem an d th e cas e fo r fu rth er pro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n. W e al so de ny al l p en di ng m ot io ns

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-