Case Name: Richard GALLEGOS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SLIDELL POLICE DEPARTMENT; Slidell Police Officers; Unidentified Parties, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-23
Citations: 304 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 08-30248
Parties: Richard GALLEGOS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SLIDELL POLICE DEPARTMENT; Slidell Police Officers; Unidentified Parties, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Richard GALLEGOS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SLIDELL POLICE DEPARTMENT; Slidell Police Officers; Unidentified Parties, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-30248
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 23, 2008.
Richard Gallegos, Jr., Covington, LA, pro se.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Gallegos, Jr. appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to comply with a court order to identify by name the Slidell police officers discussed in his complaint. Although the district court dismissed Gallegos's suit without prejudice, the dismissal is effectively with prejudice due to the one-year statute of limitations. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir.1996); Davis v. Louisiana State Univ., 876 F.2d 412, 413 (5th Cir.1989).
The record does not show that Gallegos's failure to comply with the court's order was the result of contumaciousness or an attempt to delay the proceedings. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir.1992). Additionally, Gallegos was likely entitled to conduct discovery to determine the identities of the unnamed defendants, as "[i]t is conceivable that" readily available documentation would reveal the identities of the officers who participated in the allegedly illegal arrest. See Murphy v. Kellar, 950 F.2d 290, 293 (5th Cir.1992). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to afford Gallegos the opportunity to conduct discovery. See id.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.