19-13104
11th Cir.Oct 19, 2020Background
- Jeffrey Bourassa, a pro se state prisoner, appealed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his civil-rights complaint and denial of his motion to vacate.
- Bourassa filed six in forma pauperis (IFP) affidavits with inconsistent information and did not submit the required certified six‑month inmate trust account statements.
- He claimed prison officials refused to provide account statements but failed to produce dates, copies of requests/denials, or names of officials when asked by the magistrate judge.
- The magistrate judge found the filings incomplete, inconsistent, and evasive and concluded Bourassa acted in bad faith; the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed.
- Bourassa later submitted a letter requesting an account statement, but it was written after the magistrate judge’s report and was attached to objections (not to his motion to vacate). The district court denied his motion to vacate and denied as moot his renewed motion to review IFP status.
- The district court noted Bourassa was not precluded from filing a new complaint on the court’s standard form with a ten‑page attachment limit; Bourassa challenged that limit but waived amendment rights by appealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to provide inmate account statements was proper | Bourassa said prison officials refused to provide statements so he could not comply | District Court: Bourassa failed to corroborate refusal; affidavits were inconsistent and evasive | Affirmed — dismissal not an abuse of discretion; Bourassa had opportunity to produce documentation and showed bad faith |
| Whether the district court ignored a letter requesting an account statement in denying motion to vacate | Bourassa: the May 2019 letter to prison shows he requested a statement and should have been considered | District Court: letter came after R&R, was attached to objections not the vacate motion, and did not undermine bad faith finding | Affirmed — denial of motion to vacate not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether limiting any amended complaint to ten pages of attachments was improper | Bourassa challenged the ten‑page attachment limit | District Court: limit applied to any new filing on the court form | Not reached — Bourassa waived the right to amend by appealing the dismissal |
| Whether denying as moot Bourassa’s second motion to review IFP was error | Bourassa: court should have reached the merits and ordered prison officials to provide statements | District Court: after dismissal there was no live case or controversy, so relief would be meaningless | Affirmed — motion was moot (de novo review of mootness) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards for evaluating IFP affidavits and indigence)
- Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2002) (district court must take reasonable steps to determine whether prisoner complied with fee orders)
- Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for denial of motion to vacate/amend)
- Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court may decline to consider arguments not presented to the magistrate)
- United States v. Al‑Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008) (mootness is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waives right to amend under certain circumstances)