FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 8, 2008
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DOMINIC GROLL,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 07-1332
v. (D. Colorado)
BOBBY JOHNSON; JOE ORTIZ, (D.C. No. 06-cv-1739-ZLW)
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Proceeding pro se, Colorado state prisoner Dominic Groll appeals the
district court’s dismissal of the civil rights complaint he brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Groll’s complaint contained several claims relating to his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
assignment to an inmate labor crew. Specifically, Groll alleged violations of his
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and further alleged prison
officials retaliated against him for asserting his constitutional rights. On
September 1, 2006, the district court granted Groll’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis and ordered him to make monthly payments of the $350.00 filing fee or
show cause each month why he has no assets and no means by which to make the
payment. The order warned Groll that his suit could be dismissed by the court if
he failed to stay current with his payment obligations.
On December 4, 2006, the district court dismissed Groll’s lawsuit,
concluding he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to all the
claims raised in his complaint. Groll appealed. This court vacated the district
court’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Groll v.
Johnson, 233 F. App’x 8410 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct.
910 (2007)).
On remand, the district court issued an order to show cause, instructing
Groll to show cause why his suit should not be dismissed for failing to comply
with the September 1, 2006 order relating to the payment of the district court
filing fee. After considering Groll’s response to the order to show cause, the
district court dismissed his suit without prejudice, noting he had remitted only
two of the required payments and otherwise failed to comply with the September
-2-
1, 2006 order by sending a current certified copy of his inmate trust fund account
statement in the months payments were not made.
This court reviews a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order for
an abuse of discretion. Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340, 341 (10th Cir.
1994). Having reviewed Groll’s appellate brief, the district court’s order of
dismissal, and the entire record on appeal, we conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it dismissed Groll’s complaint without prejudice.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing Groll’s suit without
prejudice is affirmed. Groll’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
is granted, but he is reminded that he remains obligated to continue making
partial payments until his appellate filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-