(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 92-5710
Conference Calendar
__________________
REGINALD I. BAILEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NORTH EAST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-91-CV-649
- - - - - - - - - -
(November 1, 1993)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald I. Bailey filed a § 1983 action based on events
occurring in July 1990 at the Virgil T. Blossom Pool run by the
North East Independent School District. The magistrate judge
granted Bailey leave to proceed in forma pauperis and pursuant to
the defendants' motion ordered Bailey to complete a questionnaire
in an attempt to get a more definite statement of his claim.
Bailey did not answer the questionnaire. The magistrate judge

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 92-5710
-2-
then ordered him to file an answer to the questionnaire and to
explain to the court why he had failed to comply with the earlier
order. In response to this order, Bailey filed a notice of
appeal claiming that the magistrate judge was not impartial and
complaining that the questionnaire was violative of his
constitutional rights. The magistrate judge refused to recuse
himself as Bailey had not shown any basis for such action and
again ordered Bailey to answer the questionnaire. Bailey did not
and the defendants moved to dismiss Bailey's suit for failure to
comply with the orders of the court. The magistrate judge then
issued a memorandum and recommended that the case be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). The district court agreed.
This Court views "dismissal with prejudice for failure to
prosecute [as] an extreme sanction which is to be used only when
the `plaintiff's conduct has threatened the integrity of the
judicial process [in a way which] leav[es] the court no choice
but to deny that plaintiff its benefits.'" McNeal v. Papasan,
842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rogers v. Kroger Co.,
669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982)). The Court went on to state
that a district court would abuse its discretion in entering such
a dismissal unless "a particular case discloses both (1) a clear
record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and (2)
that a lesser sanction would not better serve the best interests
of justice." Id.
In this case, both circumstances exist. First, there is no
other apparent sanction that would have any effect on Bailey.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 92-5710
-3-
Imposing a fine would be futile because Bailey is proceeding as a
pauper. Imposing a term of jail time would be ineffective
because Bailey is already in custody for some other reason.
Also, it is certain that an admonition from the court would be
useless because Bailey has three times ignored the advisory
orders of the magistrate judge. As a result, no sanction but
dismissal with prejudice would make any difference to Bailey.
Second, the record is replete with Bailey's delay tactics
and contumacious conduct. Over the course of these proceedings
Bailey has thrice refused to comply with the magistrate judge's
order that he answer these questions. Bailey has gone so far as
to call the magistrate judge's actions "dilatory, burdensome,
[and] friv[o]lous." Bailey has also made a totally baseless
request that the magistrate judge recuse himself based on
unfavorable rulings in other cases. See Davis v. Board of School
Commissioners of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044, 1051 (5th Cir.
1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944 (1976).
Taken together, the above acts demonstrate that Bailey has
nothing but contempt for the judicial process and the district
court was justified in refusing to allow Bailey to continue to
abuse the system. Additionally, the magistrate judge and the
district court did not act rashly in this matter, but gave Bailey
three chances to pursue his claim. The dismissal with prejudice
was warranted. Bailey is cautioned that if he persists in filing
frivolous actions, the full panoply of sanctions, including
contempt of court, will be brought to bear.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --