Leigh-Davis Glass v. Scottrade, No. 08-3848 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. District court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to reopen her case as plaintiff explained that her failure to comply with the court's order and make a PLRA partial filing fee payment was due to circumstances beyond her control.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3848 ___________ Leigh-Davis Glass, Appellant, v. Scottrade, Inc., a SIPC Insured Brokerage Firm, also known as Scottrade Brokerage, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * * ___________ Submitted: November 6, 2009 Filed: December 10, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. California prisoner Leigh-Davis Glass appeals the District Court s order denying her motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to reopen her case, which the court dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because a partial filing fee was not paid within thirty days as ordered. Following careful review, we conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in declining to reopen the case because Glass explained that she acted promptly to attempt to comply with the Court s order and that the $3.47 payment was late for reasons beyond her control. See In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prod. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866 68 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review; factors which must be taken into account include (1) danger of prejudice to non-moving party; (2) length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) whether movant acted in good faith; and (4) reason for delay, including whether it was within movant s reasonable control). It appears that Glass acted in good faith and that the delay was neither lengthy nor prejudicial. In addition, we reject Glass's argument on appeal that the filing-fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) do not apply to her action. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915 (addressing in forma pauperis procedures for the "commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein"). The filing-fee provisions of the PLRA apply to civil actions and are not limited solely to prisoner-civil-rights actions. United States v. Jones, 215 F.3d 467, 469 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1053 (2001). Accordingly, Glass is not entitled to a waiver or refund of any filing fees. We reverse the District Court s order denying Rule 60(b) relief, and we remand for further proceedings. ______________________________ -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.
