Plaisance v. Cain

Fifth Circuit

Plaisance v. Cain

308 F. App'x 738

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 2009

Docket08-30340

StatusUnpublished

This text of 308 F. App'x 738 (Plaisance v. Cain) 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

Plaisance v. Cain, 308 F. App'x 738 (5th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Manuel D. Plaisance, Louisiana prisoner # 196480, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to comply with an order to amend his complaint to include the names of all the parties on its front page and to submit a statement of account completed by an authorized officer. Although the district court dismissed Plaisance’s suit without prejudice, the dismissal is effectively with prejudice due to the one-year statute of limitations. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir.1996); Davis v. La. State Univ., 876 F.2d 412, 413 (5th Cir.1989).

The record does not demonstrate that Plaisance’s failure to comply with the court’s order was the result of contumaciousness or an attempt to delay the proceedings. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir.1992). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Plaisance’s suit was an abuse of discretion. The district court’s judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Plaisance’s motions for costs and for production of documents are denied.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Manuel D. Plaisance, Louisiana prisoner # 196480, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to comply with an order to amend his complaint to include the names of all the parties on its front page and to submit a statement of account completed by an authorized officer. Although the district court dismissed Plaisance’s suit without prejudice, the dismissal is effectively with prejudice due to the one-year statute of limitations. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir.1996); Davis v. La. State Univ., 876 F.2d 412, 413 (5th Cir.1989).

The record does not demonstrate that Plaisance’s failure to comply with the court’s order was the result of contumaciousness or an attempt to delay the proceedings. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir.1992). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Plaisance’s suit was an abuse of discretion. The district court’s judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Plaisance’s motions for costs and for production of documents are denied.

VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTIONS 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)

308 F. App'x 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plaisance-v-cain-ca5-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack