# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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: 09/15/2020No. 19

- 30807 c/w No. 19

- 30808 c/w No. 19

- 30955 c/w No. 19

- 30956

2 **consolidated with**

_____________ No. 19

- 30 9 55

_____________ **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

- 30 956

_____________ **Milton R**

**. Hinson,**  Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Livingston Parish Sheriff's Department Internal Affairs,**  Defendant

— Appellee

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

- 30807 c/w No. 19

- 30808 c/w No. 19

- 30955 c/w No. 19

- 30956

3 Appeal s 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 appeal s from the district court’s dismissal of four 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints . Because t hey present the same issue, t he 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 appeal s if they are intertwined with the certification decision s , 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 Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2020No. 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 com pel 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
t he 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 d ismissal 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 co nclude that the district
court abuse d 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 le niency 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 **REMAND ED**  to the district court for further proceedings. Case: 19-30807 Document: 00515565324 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/15/2020