Holden v. Simpson Paper Co

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2002
• Docket: 01-20914
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 01-20914 Summary Calendar _______________

NELDA HOLDEN; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

NELDA HOLDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SIMPSON PAPER COMPANY; ET AL.,

Defendants,

SIMPSON PASADENA PAPER COMPANY; PASADENA PAPER COMPANY, L.P.,

Defendants-Appellees,

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas m H-00-CV-1363 m H-00-CV-2100 _________________________ September 18, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and counsel, Harold Dutton, to attempt recovery EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. of the costs. By the end of 2000, however, neither Holden nor her attorney had contacted JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:* Simpson about paying the debt or otherwise complying with the order. Nelda Holden sued Simpson Paper Com- pany (“Simpson”) for unlawful discharge. In In January 2001, Simpson filed a motion this litigation, she repeatedly refused to com- notifying the district court of Holden’s non- ply with the district court’s orders to pay costs compliance, explaining its attempts to contact assessed against her in a 1995 lawsuit against her attorney. That month, the court issued its Simpson. After Holden disobeyed its second second order directing Holden to negotiate a order to compel costs, the court dismissed her payment plan with Simpson for the costs im- new suit with prejudice for failure to comply posed in the first suit. When Holden explained with orders, enjoined her from filing any other that she could not afford to pay, Simpson suits in the Southern District of Texas without offered to permit her to pay the debt in court approval, and fined her an additional monthly, interest-free installments of $114 and $1,000. Concluding that Holden’s deliberate prepared a promissory note to that effect. disobedience of multiple court orders brought Holden made only two payments of $114 and these sanctions within the district court’s dis- refused to sign the promissory note. cretion, we affirm. In July 2001, Simpson filed another notice I. of Holden’s non-compliance and suggested the In October 1995, Holden sued Simpson for imposition of further sanctions, whereupon the unlawful discrimination. Holden v. Simpson court ordered her to appear to explain her Pasadena Paper Co., No. H-95-4989. In May noncompliance. The court promptly held a 1997, the court granted Simpson’s motion for hearing and concluded that Holden had no rea- summary judgment and entered a final order of sonable basis for refusing to pay. Although dismissal. The next month, the court assessed Holden explained she had been unable to ob- $3,993.98 in costs, which Holden did not pay. tain work, she also stated that she had used a lump sum severance payment to pay off the In April 2000, Holden brought the instant note on her house, and the court concluded suit against Simpson, Pasadena Paper Com- she had not looked for work diligently. pany, and various other entities. In August 2000, Simpson informed the court of the out- The court entered three sanctions: (1) It standing costs, whereupon the court issued an dismissed the instant suit; (2) it entered what order compelling Holden to pay Simpson “the the parties have styled a preclusion order, bar- $3,993.98 taxed against her in H-95-4989.” ring Holden from filing another suit in the Simpson mailed three letters to Holden’s trial Southern District of Texas “without the court’s written permission in advance”; and (3) it ordered her to pay an additional $1,000 in * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has sanctions to Simpson Pasadena Paper Com- determined that this opinion should not be pub- pany. During the hearing, the court described lished and is not precedent except under the limited the first two orders as “infinitely reviewable,” circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2 and explained that it would consider vacating sanctions. Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 those orders if she paid the costs in full. In (5th Cir. 1996).2 A dismissal with prejudice is January 2002, the court entered an order cer- “an extreme sanction that deprives the litigant tifying the dismissal and preclusion orders for of the opportunity to pursue his claim.” appeal under FED. R. CIV. P. 54. Callip, 757 F.3d at 1519 (citation and internal quotation omitted). We review such a II. dismissal for abuse of discretion. Long, 77 Holden relies on our cases describing the F.3d at 879. standards for dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 41 for failure to prosecute. Rule 41, however, Simpson met its required burden of proving also gives courts the power to dismiss for de- that Holden had knowingly and deliberately liberate and flagrant disobedience of court or- disobeyed the court orders. 3 Holden argues ders. Such dismissals are presumed to be with prejudice.1 2 In the line of cases describing dismissals for To dismiss with prejudice for disobedience, failure to prosecute, we have considered other the court must find that (1) the plaintiff aggravating factors, such as whether the plaintiff deliberately or contumaciously refused to or attorney caused the delay, the delay prejudiced comply with (2) multiple or repeated court the defendant, or the attorney acted intentionally. orders (3) despite the imposition of lesser Callip v. Harris County Child Welfare Dep’t, 757 F.3d 1513, 1519 (5th Cir. 1985). It is uncertain whether these same aggravating factors apply to a dismissal for a party’s refusal to obey court orders. 1 Rule 41(b) provides: We do not need to reach the question, because the boilerplate test adequately measures many of these For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute factors and justifies the dismissal. or to comply with these rules or any order of 3 court, a defendant may move for dismissal Connolly v. Papachristid Shipping, Ltd., 504 of an action or of any claim against the F.2d 917, 920 (5th Cir. 1974) (reversing rule 41(b) defendant. Unless the court in its order for dismissal because noncompliance appeared dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal inadvertent rather than deliberate); Council of Fed- under this subdivision and any dismissal not erated Org. v. Mize, 339 F.2d 898, 900 (5th Cir. provided for in this rule, other than a 1964) (reversing because “it must be inferred from dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for the record that counsel for the plaintiffs improper venue, or for failure to join a party misunderstood the district court’s order . . . and under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication their absence was not willful or in bad faith”); on the merits. 8 JAMES WM. MORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 41.53, at 203-04 (3d ed. 2002) FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Although the text of rule (“[T]he district court need only find that a party 41(b) suggests the defendant needs to move for acted deliberately rather than accidently, and need dismissal, district courts have the inherent power to not find bad faith.”). See Bonaventure v. Butler, raise the possibility of dismissal sua sponte. Link 593 F.2d 625, 626 (5th Cir. 1979) (interpreting v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b) to permit dismissal where (failure to prosecute); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 party repeatedly and deliberately refused to appear F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (disobeying court for deposition); Durgin v. Graham, 372 F.2d 130, order). (continued...)

3 that because we have most commonly upheld buzzwords “bad faith” and “wilfulness,” which involuntary dismissals for unjustified delays have no meaning in a vacuum. and excessive, frivolous, and abusive litigation, those are t he exclusive grounds for proving The district court had little difficulty wilfulness or bad faith under rule 41(b). Most concluding that Holden had deliberately of those cases, however, considered dismissals disobeyed the order. After June 1997, the for failure to prosecute.4 order imposing costs should have placed Holden on notice. Simpson’s subsequent and Rule 41(b) makes ignoring a court rule or repeated attempts to contact her went ignored. order a separate ground for involuntary dis- By the time of the sanctions hearing, the court missal. And it is difficult to imagine how a had twice ordered her to pay the outstanding plaintiff can disobey a court order more costs. willfully or in worse faith than when she has At the sanctions hearing, Holden never knowledge of the order and deliberately even tried to argue that she misunderstood her disobeys it. Holden fails to articulate a legal obligations in 1997. Despite coherent, competing standard that would understanding those obligations, she failed to validate her conduct,5 but merely invokes the satisfy them over a period of four years. The record evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates her deliberateness. 3 (...continued) 131 (5th Cir. 1967) (same). To support its dismissal, the district court 4 pointed to a series of court orders that Holden In this portion of her brief, Holden cites cases had ignored for over four years. The district with only tangential relevance. E.g., Smith v. Legg court cannot dismiss for a plaintiff’s isolated (In re United Markets Intn’l, Inc.), 24 F.3d 650, failure to comply with a single order; minor 654 (5th Cir. 1994) (affirming sanction of over $60,000 based on frivolous claims and appeals); infractions are not enough.6 We have affirmed Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1411-12 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding 5 that attorney acted in bad faith by deliberately (...continued) disobeying court orders, but vacating sanction advertence. District courts may use a dismissal compelling him to turn over personal tax records with prejudice to punish an attorney’s negligence because it lacked relation to his misconduct and only in “extreme and unusual circumstances.” intruded on his personal privacy); EEOC v. Gen. Hassenflu v. Pyke, 491 F.2d 1094, 1095 (5th Cir. Dynamics Corp., 999 F.2d 113, 119 (5th Cir. 1974). 1993) (reversing sanctions for failure to comply 6 with discovery orders because district court did not E.g., Neal v. IAM Local Lodge 2386, 722 find that attorney had acted deliberately or F.2d 247, 249 (5th Cir. 1984) (reversing dismissal wilfully); Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, for missing “one of these deadlines by a few 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990) (affirming dismissal of days”), overruled on other grounds, Baldwin claim for frivolous and abusive litigation). County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-50 (1984); Houston Citizens Bank & Trust 5 Holden does not argue that the failure to pay Co. v. Dolleslager (In re Dolleslager), 618 F.2d was her attorney’s fault. We usually do not pun- 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1980) (reversing dismissal for ish parties for counsel’s mere negligence or in- failure to obey single pretrial order requiring (continued...) (continued...)

4 dismissals, however, where the plaintiffs have A district court must at least consider and failed either to comply with a series of court reject less drastic measures. Hornbuckle v. orders7 or comply with a single court order Arco Oil & Gas Co., 732 F.2d 1233, 1237 despite many opportunities to do so.8 (5th Cir. 1984). In most cases, the court should attempt to use less severe sanctions The instant case falls squarely into the latter before resorting to involuntary dismissal. category. Holden disobeyed at least three Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Group, Inc., 117 orders to pay the costs over a period of four F.3d 894, 898 (5th Cir. 1997); McNeal v. B.H. years. Her disobedience was grave enough to Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 793 (5th Cir. 1988). warrant dismissal with prejudice. If those measures would be ineffective, however, the court may involuntarily dismiss with prejudice.9

6 (...continued) Here, the court settled on dismissal as the amendment of complaint); Wrenn v. Am. Cast Iron only sanction likely to be effective. In doing Pipe Co., 575 F.2d 544, 546 (5th Cir. 1978) so, the court exercised sufficient patience. (finding that failure to pay partial filing fee despite Holden’s refusal to pay costs from the first suit otherwise diligent prosecution should not justify limited the disciplinary options; the court dismissal), overruled on other grounds, Baldwin reasonably expected that Holden would simply County Welcome Ctr., 466 U.S. at 149-50. ignore monetary fines. The court gave her 7 several opportunities to comply. In all, the E.g., Dorsey v. Scott Wetzel Servs., Inc., 84 two district courts gave Holden three F.3d 170, 172 (5th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal opportunities to comply with the initial for failure to file joint pretrial order, failure to ap- assessment of costs. pear at docket call, failure to be set for trial, and tardily designating expert); Berry v. CIGNA/RSI- CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1192 n.6 (5th Cir. 1992) When Holden failed to pay those costs, the (“[W]here a plaintiff has failed to comply with court was not limited to dismissing without several court orders or court rules, we have held prejudice. Warnings give the district court la- that the district court did not abuse its discretion titude to dismiss with prejudice, Callip, 757 . . . .”) (collecting cases). F.2d at 1521-22, and doing so was well within the court’s discretion. 8 E.g., Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming dismissal with prejudice In at least three cases, we have considered where prisoner plaintiff ignored order to file involuntarily dismissals based on failure to pay statement of trust account and ignored subsequent warning that failure to comply would result in dis- missal); Martin-Trigona v. Morris, 627 F.2d 680, 9 682 (5th Cir. 1980) (affirming dismissal where Sturgeon v. Airborne Freight Corp., 778 F.2d plaintiff failed to respond to motion to dismiss over 1154 (5th Cir. 1985) (“When lesser sanctions have a period of thirteen months despite three orders to proved futile, a district court may properly dismiss do so); Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th a suit with prejudice.”) (citation and quotations Cir. 1991) (finding that district court properly omitted); Callip, 757 F.2d at 1521 (explaining that dismissed complaint for failure to comply with providing the plaintiff with second and third chanc- service order because court gave instructions and es to comply with order counts as a lesser opportunity to correct faulty service). sanction).

5 costs assessed in an earlier case. In Duchardt Without more lenient sanctions and an v. Ewing, 571 F.2d 869, 870-71 (5th Cir. opportunity to respond, the plaintiff never had 1978), we reversed an automatic, involuntary the opportunity to explain that the first court dismissal where the plaintiff had attempted to assessed costs only because of his procedural challenge the costs in the first case but used error. The dismissing court, therefore, could the wrong procedural vehicle. We classified never consider the severity of the plaintiff’s the dismissal sanction as too harsh where the disobedience in the context of the first court’s plaintiff did not have an opportunity to substantive reasons for shifting costs. articulate his reasons for defeating cost recovery. Id. In Gelabert, 894 F.2d at 748, By contrast, in this case the dismissing however, we affirmed an involuntary dismissal court displayed great patience and considered with prejudice where an overly litigious Holden’s arguments against dismissal. The plaintiff had failed to pay a $10 fine from an court not only issued a new order compelling earlier case. In Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d payment, but, when Holden failed to comply 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1999), we affirmed an with that order, the dismissing court issued a involuntary dismissal without prejudice for the second order. Only after Holden failed to plaintiff’s failure to comply with other courts’ comply with that second order did the court sanctions orders. Emphasizing the plaintiff’s order a hearing to consider further sanctions. history of frivolous litigation, we noted that one court could validly enforce other courts’ At that hearing, Holden argued only that orders with the sanction of involuntary she did not have the ability to pay. She dismissal. Id. at 1067-68. Neither Gelabert admitted, however, that she had received a nor Balawajder cites or considers Duchardt. severance payment after the assessment of costs and used the money to pay off her house We interpret Duchardt as limited to cases note. She also admitted that she had refused in which the plaintiff asserts that the first court to negotiate a reasonable regular payment plan shifted costs only because the plaintiff had with Simpson despite their repeated attempts made a procedural error and the second court to contact her. did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to ex- plain or comply before dismissal. In Duchardt, The court certainly could have concluded although we did not spell out the insufficiency, that Holden had the money to pay the costs the district court violated one of our traditional and that she had no valid objection to the ori- requirements for a rule 41(b) dismissal. As ginal order. Because Holden received early as 1976, we had vacated a decision for adequate notice and an opportunity to explain, failing to consider thoroughly less severe this case differs fundamentally from Duchardt. sanctions. Boazman v. Economics Lab., Inc., Instead, we rely on our general caselaw 537 F.2d 210, 213-14 (5th Cir. 1976). governing rule 41(b) dismissals, Gelabart, and Balawajder. All of these sources point toward In Duchardt, the district court affirming the involuntary dismissal. automatically dismissed without considering lesser sanctions or warning the plaintiff. We III. imposed this requirement to avoid precisely The district court also imposed a $1,000 the risk we described as acute in Duchardt. sanction. At the hearing, the court appeared

6 to base its sanction on the costs generated by Deliberately disobeying court orders dem- Holden’s refusal to pay the original costs as- onstrates sufficient bad faith to justify a district sessed in 1997. Because Holden did not vol- court’s sanction under its inherent powers. In untarily dismiss her 1995 suit, rule 41(d) did Toon, 250 F.3d at 953-54, we affirmed a not authorize the sanction.10 We have held, $15,000 sanction where an attorney had ig- however, that district courts have the inherent nored an order to file a motion under seal. In power to sanction litigants for abusive Natural Gas Pipeline, 2 F.3d at 1409-11, we conduct.11 We review the exercise of those labeled an attorney’s bald refusal to comply inherent powers for abuse of discretion. with three court orders to turn over documents Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy as “bad faith.” The repeated refusal to comply Gathering, Inc., 86 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. with court orders demonstrates “bad faith” and 1996). amply supports the sanctions awarded in this case. Holden essentially repeats the argument she made for reversing the dismissalSSbad faith is Finally, Holden argues that she does not required, and she did not act in bad faith. have the money, and the district court should Once again, she cites cases involving frivolous have been sensitive to her in forma pauperis or repetitive litigation and assumes that is the status. A litigant’s poverty should not make only example of litigants abusing the litigation him immune to the courts’ discipline. procedure in bad faith. She is wrong. Monetary fines mean less to insolvent defen- dants, making them less effective for deterring abuse of the judicial system. In re Sindram, 10 498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991) (explaining Rule 41(d) shifts costs for lawsuits dismissed diminished deterrent effect on pro se by the plaintiff and later recommenced: prisoners). We will not limit the scope of courts’ inherent powers over these defendants If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action in a way that will exacerbate the problem. based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may For those reasons, we have previously held make such order for the payment of costs of that a litigant’s in forma pauperis status does the action previously dismissed as it may not automatically shield him from sanctions for deem proper and may stay the proceedings abusing the litigation process. In re United in the action until the plaintiff has complied Markets Int’l, 24 F.3d at 855-56; Gelabert, with the order. 894 F.2d at 748. The Supreme Court has sim- ilarly interpreted the in forma pauperis statute FED. R. CIV. P. 41(d). not to include waiver of filing fees for 11 frivolous or abusive suits.12 Toon v. Wackenhut Corrections Corp., 250 F.3d 950, 952 (5th Cir. 2001) (“When a party’s deplorable conduct is not effectively sanctionable 12 pursuant to an existing rule or statute, it is E.g., Demos v. United States District Court appropriate for a district court to rely on its (In re Demos), 500 U.S. 16, 17 (1991) (“Petitioner inherent powers to impose sanctions.”) (citation has abused the system, and we find it appropriate and quotations omitted); Natural Gas Pipeline, 2 to deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis to F.3d at 1407 (same). (continued...)

7 Holden has not presented record evidence that her impoverished status should justify reversing the sanctions for her admitted misbehavior. The district court’s orders reflected that she only needed to begin paying the costs. Simpson attempted to arrange a monthly, interest free payment plan. Holden refused to sign a promissory note memorializing the payment plan and stopped making payments without notice or explanation.

In the face of these accommodations, Hol- den at least had an obligation to bring her fi- nancial circumstances to the attention of either Simpson or the court and negotiate a new pay- ment plan. She did not do so, and the court had the discretion to sanction her harshly for her pattern of contumacious conduct.

AFFIRMED.

12 (...continued) petitioner in these two petitions for extraordinary relief . . . and in all future petitions for extraordinary relief.”); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (suspending in forma pauperis status for all future writ applications because of past abuses).