United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-30807

 

Milton Raymond Hinson,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

David Boyle Hale,

Defendant—Appellee.

consolidated with

_____________

No. 19-30808

_____________

Milton R. Hinson,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Jose Francisco Artecona,

Defendant—Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-30807

c/w No. 19-30808

c/w No. 19-30955

c/w No. 19-30956

2

consolidated with

_____________

No. 19-30955

_____________

Milton R. Hinson, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

21ST Judicial District Office of Public Defense for the 

Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana,

Defendant—Appellee.

consolidated with

_____________

No. 19-30956

_____________

Milton R. Hinson, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Livingston Parish Sheriff's Department Internal 

Affairs,

Defendant—Appellee.

Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-30807

c/w No. 19-30808

c/w No. 19-30955

c/w No. 19-30956

3

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:19-CV-421

USDC No. 3:19-CV-420

USDC No. 3:19-CV-384

USDC No. 3:19-CV-368

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Milton R. Hinson, proceeding pro se, moves to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) in these four appealsfrom the district court’s dismissal of four 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. Because they present the same issue, the 

appeals in No. 19-30807, No. 19-30808, No. 19-30955, and No. 19-30956 are 

CONSOLIDATED. 

By moving to proceed IFP, Hinson is contesting the district court’s 

certifications that his appeals are not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Our inquiry 

is limited to whether the appeals involve legal points that are arguable on their 

merits and therefore are not frivolous, Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th 

Cir. 1983), but we may determine the merits of the appeals if they are 

intertwined with the certification decisions, see Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202.

In each of these cases, Hinson moved for leave to proceed IFP in the 

district court and asserted that he was unable to provide the certified account 

statement required by § 1915(a)(2) because officials at the institution where 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-30807

c/w No. 19-30808

c/w No. 19-30955

c/w No. 19-30956

4

he was confined refused to complete the statement without a court order. In 

each case, the district court (1) issued a single deficiency notice warning 

Hinson that his case would be dismissed if he failed to submit the account 

statement, (2) denied Hinson’s subsequent motion to compel the officials to 

provide the statement, and (3) sua sponte dismissed without prejudice based 

on Hinson’s failure to file the statement. In support of his motions to proceed 

IFP on appeal, Milton reiterates that he was prevented from timely providing 

the account statements by the institution, and he identifies a separate case 

where he was able to submit the account statement after a different district 

court granted a motion and ordered the institution to comply.

Sua sponte dismissal without prejudice based on failure to comply 

with a court order to submit an account statement is subject to review for 

abuse of discretion. See Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 

1998). On the specific facts presented here, we conclude that the district 

court abused its discretion. See id.; cf. Davis v. Fernandez, 798 F.3d 290, 293 

(5th Cir. 2015) (“[W]here the law affords courts discretion as to how a 

particular rule is to be applied, courts must exercise such discretion with 

leniency towards unrepresented parties.”). On that basis, Hinson’s motions 

for leave to proceed IFP are GRANTED and we DISPENSE with further 

briefing. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. The district court’s judgments are 

VACATED, and these cases are REMANDED to the district court for 

further proceedings.

Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/15/2020