Harris v. Cozza-Rhodes
703 F. App'x 648
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cornelius Harris, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to prevent prison officials from interfering with a hunger strike protesting his transfer.
- The district court ordered Harris to cure deficiencies: use court-approved prisoner-complaint form and either pay the $400 filing fee or file a Prisoner’s Motion & Affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Harris repeatedly failed to comply with the fee/IFP requirement despite receiving court-approved forms and multiple extensions; he claimed limited access to writing materials due to suicide precautions, but the warden stated Harris had access and his hands were not paralyzed.
- The district court issued several orders and gave multiple 30-day extensions, directed the Clerk to send forms, and twice inquired into Harris’s ability to respond.
- After Harris filed a second amended complaint on the approved form but still did not pay the fee or file an IFP motion, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure deficiencies and for failure to prosecute; judgment entered the same day.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion and noting dismissal without prejudice allows refiling after curing defects; the court also denied Harris IFP status on appeal for lack of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders (pay fee or file IFP) was improper | Harris contended he lacked notice or ability to comply (claimed no copy of the March 9 order; limited access to writing materials due to suicide precautions) | District court argued Harris received multiple orders, forms, and extensions and failed to comply with clear directives | Affirmed: dismissal without prejudice was within the court’s discretion; Harris had adequate notice and repeated opportunities to cure |
| Whether Harris should be granted IFP status on appeal | Harris implicitly sought IFP by appealing pro se | Appellee/record: Harris did not present a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument as required for appellate IFP | Denied: appellate IFP denied for lack of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Ecclesiastes 9:10–11–12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissals)
- McEwen v. City of Norman, 926 F.2d 1539 (10th Cir.) (standard for reviewing discretionary dismissals)
- Rogers v. Andrus Transp. Servs., 502 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (Rule 41(b) allows sua sponte dismissal)
- Florence v. Decker, [citation="153 F. App'x 478"] (10th Cir.) (dismissal without prejudice for failure to pay initial filing fee)
- Brown v. Beck, [citation="203 F. App'x 907"] (10th Cir.) (prisoner must be given adequate opportunity to comply with fee order)