IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30438
Summary Calendar
VINCENT MARK CASTILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES R. WRIGHT, Captain, Forcht Wade Correctional Center;
CHRISTOPHER HALL, Lieutenant, Forcht Wade Correctional
Center; ALFRED CARTER, Sergeant, Forcht Wade Correctional
Center; TOMMY WILLINGER; UNKNOWN CARTER; UNKNOWN DAWSON;
UNKNOWN PITTS; UNKNOWN MCBRIDE; UNKNOWN RAY; UNKNOWN BATSON;
JANE DOE #1; JANE DOE #2; FORCHT WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER;
STATE OF LOUISIANA; MIKE FOSTER; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS; RICHARD L. STALDER; ELAYN HUNT
CORRECTIONAL CENTER; UNKNOWN LEGER; C. M. LENSING; JOHN DOE #1;
UNKNOWN MALINA; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; UNKNOWN SNOWTEN;
UNKNOWN NORTH; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE #5; JOHNATHAN WIGGER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-155-C-M2
--------------------
January 7, 2003
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-30438
-2-
Vincent Mark Castillo filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
alleging various constitutional violations arising from acts or
omissions which took place while he was incarcerated in various
Louisiana correctional facilities. The district court dismissed
Castillo’s complaint for failure to comply with a court order.
We review such a dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Long
v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court
dismissed Castillo’s complaint without prejudice. However,
because of the operation of the statute of limitations, the
dismissal operates as a dismissal with prejudice. See Owens
v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); Jacobsen v. Osborne,
133 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1998).
“A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if the
failure to comply with the court order was the result of
purposeful delay or contumaciousness and the record reflects that
the district court employed lesser sanctions before dismissing
the action.” Long, 77 F.3d at 880. Because the record contains
no indication that Castillo failed to comply in an effort to
delay or out of contumaciousness, the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing the complaint. See id. The district
court’s order dismissing Castillo’s complaint for failure to
comply with a court order is vacated and the case is remanded.
VACATE AND REMAND.