Meeks v. DeBouse, No. 23-10574 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-10574 Document: 00516976196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10574 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED November 21, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk James Arthur Meeks, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Alvin DeBouse, United States Probation Officer, Northern District of Texas, Arlington Division; FNU LNU, Chief Probation Officer/Supervisor United States Probation-Northern District of Texas, Ed Kinkeade’s CourtroomArlington Division; FNU LNU, Supervisor, John Doe Task Force; John Doe Task Force, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CV-313 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10574 Document: 00516976196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 No. 23-10574 James Arthur Meeks, III, Texas prisoner # 00543366 and proceeding pro se, contests the district court’s dismissing his civil-rights claims for want of prosecution. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court can dismiss sua sponte a plaintiff’s action for want of prosecution. E.g., McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789–90 (5th Cir. 1988). “Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Involuntary Dismissal”). Review is for abuse of discretion. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 789–90. Because the judgment did not state the dismissal was without prejudice, it is presumed to have been with prejudice. See Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 n.8 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[I]t is well established that a dismissal is presumed to be with prejudice unless the order explicitly states otherwise”.). The court, however, clarified in its order denying Meeks’ Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment that “[t]he dismissal was without prejudice in any event”. Nevertheless, the court denied the motion and did not amend its earlier judgment. The judgment is VACATED; this matter is REMANDED for entry of judgment without prejudice. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.