Background
Tristian Bolongia filed a pro se employment discrimination complaint against Target Corporation and several employees. After filing a second amended complaint, Bolongia failed to provide proof of service for one defendant and failed to certify service of the second amended complaint as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure four and five. The district court ordered him to show proof of compliance within three weeks or face dismissal. Bolongia failed to comply, and the district court dismissed the action without prejudice. Bolongia later filed a motion for relief from judgment citing a medical emergency, which the district court denied. Bolongia appealed, arguing the dismissal was an inappropriate sanction for minor infractions.
The court’s reasoning
The Tenth Circuit applied a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard. The court noted that Rule forty-one permits dismissal for failure to comply with rules or court orders. The panel found that Bolongia violated a specific court order, rendering his arguments about Rule four flexibility irrelevant. Regarding Rule five, the court emphasized that while the rule is ministerial, compliance with court orders is mandatory for all litigants. The district court had explicitly warned Bolongia of the risk of dismissal and provided an opportunity to cure. The court also rejected Bolongia’s argument that the dismissal was functionally with prejudice because he failed to address the statute of limitations on appeal. Finally, the court held that Bolongia’s failure to meet the deadline due to a deliberate choice rather than excusable neglect precluded relief under Rule sixty point one.
All litigants, pro se or otherwise, must attend scrupulously to the word of the court.
Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that pro se status does not excuse non-compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders. It clarifies that dismissals without prejudice for procedural failures are rarely reversible errors unless the plaintiff can show the statute of limitations has run.