Background
Plaintiff Latasha McKinzie, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s order dismissing her racial-discrimination suit against Defendant Bank of America under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code and New Mexico state law. The case arose from an incident on June twentieth, two thousand and twenty-four, where the Bank refused to cash a check McKinzie presented. McKinzie had previously filed three iterations of this lawsuit, all of which were dismissed. In the most recent prior action, the district court dismissed her claims with prejudice, noting that she had failed to state a claim under Title seven and that her state law claim failed because the Bank is not a public body. In the current appeal, the district court had ordered McKinzie to show cause why her case was not barred by res judicata given her prior dismissals. McKinzie failed to comply with the order, requesting more time to seek legal counsel instead. The district court declined the delay and dismissed the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure forty-one B.
The court’s reasoning
The Tenth Circuit panel unanimously determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of the appeal. The court noted that the first task of an appellant is to explain why the district court’s decision was wrong. The court found that McKinzie failed to explain why the district court erred when it dismissed her claim under Rule forty-one B after she failed to comply with its order. The court also noted that McKinzie did not explain why she did not comply with the order or why her claim would not be barred by res judicata. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that pro se litigants must actively comply with court orders and articulate specific legal errors to succeed on appeal, particularly when prior dismissals with prejudice may bar subsequent claims under res judicata.