Case Name: Douglas Alan BURDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mitch G. WOODS, Sheriff; U.P. Cassidy, Captain; M. Hebert, Deputy; U.P. Morgan, Sergeant; U.P. Yega, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 192 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 05-40744
Parties: Douglas Alan BURDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mitch G. WOODS, Sheriff; U.P. Cassidy, Captain; M. Hebert, Deputy; U.P. Morgan, Sergeant; U.P. Yega, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SMITH, DeMOSS, PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 278–278

Head Matter:
Douglas Alan BURDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mitch G. WOODS, Sheriff; U.P. Cassidy, Captain; M. Hebert, Deputy; U.P. Morgan, Sergeant; U.P. Yega, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-40744
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 27, 2006.
Douglas Alan Burden, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Alan Burden, Texas prisoner # 1160832, appeals the dismissal without prejudice as repetitious of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. Given that the access-to-the-courts claim Burden raised therein is currently pending in Burden v. Jefferson County, No. l:03-CV-233, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 319-20 (5th Cir.2002). The dismissal is therefore affirmed.
The district court, however, did not address the issue Burden raised regarding whether his inmate trust fund should be credited in the amount of the filing fee withdrawn for the instant case, which fee was apparently erroneously docketed as a new cause of action distinct from cause number l:03-CV-233. The case is therefore remanded to the district court to address Burden's entitlement, if any, to reimbursement for the filing fee in cause number l:03-CV-339.
DISMISSAL AFFIRMED; REMANDED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.