Summary Calendar RICK BEARD v. Experian Information Solutions Inc;

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 19, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10333
Summary Calendar
RICK BEARD
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC; ET AL
Defendants
TRANS UNION LLC
Defendant - Appellee
RICK BEARD
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
EXPERIAN; ET AL
Defendants
TRANSUNION
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Nos. 4:05-CV-746 c/w 4:06-CV-078
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 6 --

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
1 Trans Union is a consumer reporting agency, which
assembles and evaluates credit information reported by creditors
and furnishers of information about consumers.
2 Beard filed a nearly identical lawsuit against several
defendants, including Trans Union, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Upon
Trans Union’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern
District, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas granted the motion on January 10, 2006. On
February 7, 2006, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas consolidated both cases, civil actions
4:05-CV-746 and 4:06-CV-078.
-2-
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Rick Beard (“Beard”), proceeding pro se,
appeals the order of the district court dismissing his claims
against Defendant-Appellee Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) for
failure to prosecute. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 21, 2005, Beard filed a putative class action
complaint against several defendants, including Trans Union,1
asserting claims of credit discrimination based on race and age,
allegedly in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. In his complaint, Beard alleged that the
defendants committed discriminatory acts affecting his credit.2
The defendants filed motions for a more definite statement.
The district court granted the motions and ordered Beard to file
an amended complaint if Beard desired to pursue his claims. The

-- 2 of 6 --

3 The district court in that case dismissed Beard’s claims
against Trans Union on April 28, 2005, for failure to respond to
the court’s show-cause order.
-3-
district court warned Beard that failure to file an amended
complaint would result in the dismissal of his claims without
further notice. Beard failed to comply with the court’s order.
Because Beard’s complaint was nearly identical to another
complaint he had filed against Trans Union in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia that had been
dismissed,3 Trans Union filed a motion for security of costs,
requesting that the district court order Beard to post a bond to
secure the costs that Trans Union would incur in defending the
suit. On December 5, 2005, the district court granted Trans
Union’s motion and ordered Beard to deposit $500 with the
district court clerk by December 28, 2005, as bond for security
for Trans Union’s costs in defending the lawsuit. Beard failed
to comply with the district court’s order.
On January 3, 2006, the district court issued a show-cause
order directing Beard to file a written response by January 19,
2006, indicating why sanctions should not be imposed against him.
On January 12, 2006, Beard responded that he was unable to pay
the entire $500 security for costs, but that he could pay the
amount in installments. On January 17, 2006, the district court
amended its December 5, 2005, order on the security of costs and
directed Beard to pay the security amount in five $100

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Beard also states that the dismissal of his suit denied
him of his right to due process. Beard has done nothing more
than mention this as an issue, without any reference to it in the
argument section of his brief or any citation of legal authority,
and we decline to consider it further on appeal. See Grant v.
Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (stating that pro se
litigants must reasonably comply with the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, including that arguments must be briefed to
be preserved) (citing Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993)). Even if we were to consider it, there is no merit
to this claim, as Beard was warned on numerous occasions by the
district court that failure to comply with the court’s orders
-4-
installments, with the first payment due on January 31, 2006.
The district court warned Beard that his failure to timely comply
with its amended order would result in sanctions, including
dismissal of Beard’s claims against Trans Union.
Beard failed to comply with the district court’s order. On
February 2, 2006, Beard notified the district court that he could
not pay the first installment until February 3, 2006, and
represented that he would pay the first installment on that day.
As of February 16, 2006, the district court had not received
Beard’s payment. Accordingly, the district court dismissed
Beard’s claims against Trans Union without prejudice, concluding
that Beard had “wholly failed to prosecute his case against Trans
Union.” Beard filed this timely appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in
dismissing Beard’s claims against Trans Union. Beard argues that
the district court “prematurely dismissed” his case by not
allowing him to have his day in court.4

-- 4 of 6 --

would result in dismissal of his claims without further notice.
-5-
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua
sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Connolly v.
Papachristid Shipping Ltd., 504 F.2d 917, 920 (5th Cir. 1974)
(stating that “the district court has discretion to dismiss a
suit for failure to prosecute if the plaintiff fails to comply
with the trial court’s orders or with the rules of civil
procedure” and that this court’s review is for abuse of
discretion). Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a district court may dismiss an action based on the
failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with any order
of the court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); see also Lopez v.
Aransas County Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.
1978) (noting that “[a]lthough the rule is phrased in terms of
dismissal on the motion of the defendant, it is clear that the
power is inherent in the court and may be exercised sua sponte”).
Pro se litigants are not exempt from compliance with the rules of
procedure. See Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir.
1981). “In order to determine whether the circumstances
justified a dismissal for want of prosecution, the reviewing
court must examine the procedural history of the case and weigh
the power of the trial court to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases against the policy of law
favoring disposition of litigation on the merits.” Lopez, 570

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
F.2d at 544.
Here, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice was
based on the fact that Beard failed to comply with several court
orders and failed to prosecute his case. For example, the court
ordered Beard to comply with its December 5, 2005, order granting
Trans Union’s motion for security of costs, and its January 17,
2006, order amending its previous order on security of costs.
The district court repeatedly warned Beard that his failure to
timely comply with its orders could result in sanctions,
including dismissal of his lawsuit against Trans Union. The
district court gave Beard several opportunities to comply, as is
reflected by the procedural history of this case.
We hold that the district court, faced with these
circumstances and with Beard’s refusal to proceed as ordered, did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing Beard’s claims against
Trans Union without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the
district court dismissing Beard’s claims against Trans Union
without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.

-- 6 of 6 --