Fuller v. Harris County

Fifth Circuit

Fuller v. Harris County

207 F. App'x 450

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 2006

Docket06-20353

StatusUnpublished

This text of 207 F. App'x 450 (Fuller v. Harris County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. Harris County, 207 F. App'x 450 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

George V. Fuller, a former prisoner of Harris County, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to prosecute because Fuller failed to keep the court advised of his current address, as required by the local rules.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on a legal error or a clearly erroneous view of the pertinent facts. See Esmark Apparel, Inc. v. James, 10 F.3d 1156, 1163 (5th Cir.1994).

The district court’s dismissal was based on the fact that a court order sent to Fuller was returned to the court by the post office as undeliverable. Fuller correctly argues, and the defendant agrees, that Fuller did not change his address and that the order was returned due to an inadvertent error in addressing the envelope. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal was based on an erroneous view of the facts and was an abuse of discretion. See Esmark Apparel, Inc., 10 F.3d at 1163; McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We decline to address, and leave for the district court in the first instance, the merits of Fuller’s argument that he was entitled to a grant of summary judgment. See Western Fire Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 786 F.2d 649, 653 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986). Fuller has also filed three motions to supplement the record on appeal. Those motions are denied.

VACATED AND REMANDED. MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

George V. Fuller, a former prisoner of Harris County, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to prosecute because Fuller failed to keep the court advised of his current address, as required by the local rules.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on a legal error or a clearly erroneous view of the pertinent facts. See Esmark Apparel, Inc. v. James, 10 F.3d 1156, 1163 (5th Cir.1994).

The district court’s dismissal was based on the fact that a court order sent to Fuller was returned to the court by the post office as undeliverable. Fuller correctly argues, and the defendant agrees, that Fuller did not change his address and that the order was returned due to an inadvertent error in addressing the envelope. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal was based on an erroneous view of the facts and was an abuse of discretion. See Esmark Apparel, Inc., 10 F.3d at 1163; McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We decline to address, and leave for the district court in the first instance, the merits of Fuller’s argument that he was entitled to a grant of summary judgment. See Western Fire Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 786 F.2d 649, 653 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986). Fuller has also filed three motions to supplement the record on appeal. Those motions are denied.

VACATED AND REMANDED. MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 F. App'x 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-harris-county-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack