Akil Bey v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [999185490-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999165242-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999122237-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00102-TSE-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999240623]. Mailed to: Akil Rashidi Bey. [13-6748]

Appeal: 13-6748

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6748

AKIL RASHIDI BEY, ex rel. Aikido Graves,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY; PRINCE
WILLIAM
COUNTY
ADULT
DETENTION
CENTER;
JANE
DOE
1,
Correctional
Officers/Sheriffs
in
their
official
and
individual
capacity;
JOHN
DOE
1,
Correctional
Officers/Sheriffs in their official and individual capacity;
JOHN DOE 2, Correctional Officers/Sheriffs in their official
and
individual
capacity;
JOHN
DOE
3,
Correctional
Officers/Sheriffs in their official and individual capacity;
RAY PEREZ, Chaplin, in his official and individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00102-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted:

October 22, 2013

Decided:

November 15, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Akil Rashidi Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal: 13-6748

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-6748

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/15/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Akil Rashidi Bey appeals the district court’s order
dismissing

without

prejudice

his

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

(2006)

complaint for failure to comply with a court order to file an
amended complaint.

We vacate the district court’s order and

remand for further proceedings.
A

district

court

may

dismiss

an

action

plaintiff’s failure to comply with any order.
41(b).

based

on

a

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Where a litigant has ignored an express warning that

noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal, the
district court should dismiss the case.
F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989).

Ballard v. Carlson, 882

This court reviews a decision

to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion.

Id. at 95.

We have reviewed the district court’s orders and conclude that
they do not explicitly order Bey to file an amended complaint.
Thus, the district court’s dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly,

we

grant

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, vacate the dismissal order of the district court, and
remand

the

motions

for

evidence.
legal

action
bail

for

further

pending

proceedings.

release

and

to

We
amend

deny
claims

Bey’s
and

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-6748

before

Doc: 16

this

court

Filed: 11/15/2013

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

4