Case Name: Dominic GROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bobby JOHNSON; Joe Ortiz, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-08
Citations: 260 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 07-1332
Parties: Dominic GROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bobby JOHNSON; Joe Ortiz, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Dominic GROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bobby JOHNSON; Joe Ortiz, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-1332.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 8, 2008.
Dominic Groll, Canon City, CO, pro se.
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Proceeding pro se, Colorado state prisoner Dominic Groll appeals the district court's dismissal of the civil rights complaint he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Groll's complaint contained several claims relating to his assignment to an inmate labor crew. Specifically, Groll alleged violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and further alleged prison officials retaliated against him for asserting his constitutional rights. On September 1, 2006, the district court granted Groll's request to proceed in for-ma pauperis and ordered him to make monthly payments of the $350.00 filing fee or show cause each month why he has no assets and no means by which to make the payment. The order warned Groll that his suit could be dismissed by the court if he failed to stay current with his payment obligations.
On December 4, 2006, the district court dismissed Groll's lawsuit, concluding he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to all the claims raised in his complaint. Groll appealed. This court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Groll v. Johnson, 233 Fed.Appx. 810 (10th Cir.2007) (applying Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)).
On remand, the district court issued an order to show cause, instructing Groll to show cause why his suit should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the September 1, 2006 order relating to the payment of the district court filing fee. After considering Groll's response to the order to show cause, the district court dismissed his suit without prejudice, noting he had remitted only two of the required payments and otherwise failed to comply with the September 1, 2006 order by sending a current certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement in the months payments were not made.
This court reviews a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order for an abuse of discretion. Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340, 341 (10th Cir.1994). Having reviewed Groll's appellate brief, the district court's order of dismissal, and the entire record on appeal, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Groll's complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Groll's suit without prejudice is affirmed. Groll's application to proceed in forma, pauperis on appeal is granted, but he is reminded that he remains obligated to continue making partial payments until his appellate filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.