Whether a pro se prisoner's failure to strictly comply with Prison Litigation Reform Act procedural requirements warrants dismissal of a civil rights action without prejudice

No question identified. : WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Bohannan prays the Court provide him an extension of time until February 24, 2024. Respectfully submitted, a , Michael W. Bohannan #1841746 TDCJ-ID Stiles Unit 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, Texas 77705-7635 SWORN DECLARATION I, Michael Bohannan, being presently confined in Jeffesron County, Texas, and under penalty of perjury, do hereby affirm that the foregoing facts are true and correct, and that I have placed a copy of this motion in the prisonprovided mailbox, first-class postage prepaid, for mailing to: Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States One First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20543-0001 on this the _]$#4 _ day of Moviwha Movaw ar, 2023. CA Petitioner/Affiant = NOTE: No defendant has ever appeared in this action. Case: 20-40860 Document: 108-1 Page:1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 Gnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 20-40860 FILED Summary Calendar March 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MICHAEL BOHANNAN, versus ERIca REDIC, Texas Department of Justice-CID Law Library Supervisor; BRYAN COLLIER, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director; LORIE Davis, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director, RENEE HINojosa, Texas Department of Criminal Justice -RPD Director; JONI WHITE, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-CID Classification Chief, Defendants — Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:20-CV-293 Before KING, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CuRIAM:* Michael Bohannan, Texas prisoner #1841746, is serving a life sentence in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice after being convicted * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 20-40860 Document: 108-1 Page:2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 No. 20-40860 of violating a civil commitment order. Bohannan sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his pro se civil rights suit asserting claims based on Defendants’ alleged failure to make religious accommodations. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders that, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), he submit an IFP application containing a certified IFP data sheet along with a financial affidavit. Because certain of Bohannan’s claims might face a statute of limitations, we review the dismissal as we would a dismissal with prejudice. See Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 441 (5th Cir. 2016). Dismissal was proper only if Bohannan’s noncompliance was the result of purposeful delay or contumaciousness, lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice, and an aggravating factor was present. Jd. at 442. The deficiency orders and the district court’s other rulings made clear that, despite Bohannan’s contention that he was not a prisoner for purposes of the PLRA, he was required to provide a certified IFP data sheet and a financial affidavit as to his assets, contemporaneously with his IFP application. Rather than comply, Bohannan persisted in asserting that he was not a prisoner, that prison rules prevented him from being able to physically attach his certified IF P data sheet to a form IF P motion, that the court had not informed him what was wrong with the certified IF P data sheets he had already submitted, and that he had complied with the magistrate judge’s deficiency order when he filed a typed IFP motion and declaration. As the district court clearly explained to Bohannon multiple times, he is a prisoner and subject to the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); see also Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166, 168-71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). Case: 20-40860 Document: 108-1 Page:3 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 No. 20-40860 Additionally, the district court did not order Bohannon to physically attach the documents to each other. Finally, the district court’s defi