Court Opinion

ID: 9385591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 15:00:47.994281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:03.084190
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12449    Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 04/07/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-12449
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       LUIS HERNANDEZ,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
       Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-60768-MGC
USCA11 Case: 21-12449      Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  21-12449

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Luis Hernandez, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
       peals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 peti-
       tion for failure to pay the filing fee, and its order denying reconsid-
       eration. On appeal, Hernandez argues that the district court
       abused its discretion when it dismissed his § 2254 petition because
       he paid the filing fee two weeks before it was due. The Secretary
       of the Florida Department of Corrections (Florida) argues that we
       lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was
       untimely filed, and the district court did not enter a final appealable
       order. Florida also argues that the district court did not abuse its
       discretion because Hernandez’s failure to comply with the court’s
       order justified the dismissal of his petition. After careful review,
       we affirm.
                First, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Under federal
       law, a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date when
       it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c);
       see Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009).
       Hernandez delivered his notice of appeal to the corrections officer
       on July 12, 2021, as the stamped envelope indicates. Because Her-
       nandez filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s dis-
       missal order, his time to appeal was tolled until the district court
       resolved Hernandez’s motion for reconsideration. Fed. R. App. P.
USCA11 Case: 21-12449         Document: 32-1         Date Filed: 04/07/2023          Page: 3 of 5

       21-12449                   Opinion of the Court                                 3

       4(a)(4)(A). Florida’s argument that this court lacks jurisdiction to
       hear Hernandez case because it was a dismissal without prejudice
       is incorrect. See Maharaj v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 304 F.3d 1345,
       1349 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (affirming a district court’s dis-
       missal without prejudice of a § 2254 petition).
              Next, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismiss-
       ing Hernandez’s petition without prejudice for failure to comply
       with court orders. 1 Although we hold pro se pleadings to a less
       stringent standard, Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168
       (11th Cir. 2014), pro se litigants are required to comply with appli-
       cable procedural rules, Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
       Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
              Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court
       may dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to comply with a court or-
       der. But the discretion afforded under Rule 41(b) is not unlimited,
       and a district court may only dismiss a case with prejudice as a last
       resort in exceptional circumstances. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d
       479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). When moving for reconsideration fol-
       lowing a dismissal, “[t]he only grounds for granting [a motion for
       reconsideration] are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors

       1 We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to
       comply with rules of court. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir.
       2006). “While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard
       of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not
       an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
USCA11 Case: 21-12449      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-12449

       or law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)
       (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted).
              Shortly after Hernandez filed his § 2254 petition, the district
       court entered an order directing Hernandez to pay the $5.00 filing
       fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by May 13,
       2021. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“The clerk of each district court shall
       require the parties” filing a writ of habeas corpus pay $5.); see also
       Rule 3(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
       States District Courts. Within the order, the district court ex-
       plained that if he failed to do either of those by that date, it would
       dismiss the case. On May 18, 2021, the district court dismissed Her-
       nandez’s § 2254 petition for failure to comply with court orders.
       The district court had not received the filing fee or a motion to
       proceed in forma pauperis. On June 14, 2021, Hernandez moved
       for reconsideration of the dismissal order, providing evidence that
       his family bought a $5.00 money order made out to the district
       court clerk of court and a stamped envelope. The district court
       denied his motion for reconsideration.
               We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion
       when it clearly explained to Hernandez what was required of him,
       and he failed to follow those orders. Although Hernandez showed
       that a money order was bought to pay his filing fee, the evidence
       does not show that it was sent to or received by the court. Specifi-
       cally, the district court noted that Hernandez provided no affidavit
       from a family member saying it was sent and there was no record
       that the court had received the money order. Thus, the evidence
USCA11 Case: 21-12449      Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       21-12449                Opinion of the Court                          5

       that he submitted with his motion for reconsideration was insuffi-
       cient to establish that his family had actually paid the filing fee. Ac-
       cordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.