Jean A. Saint VIl v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
17-10666
| 11th Cir. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Jean and Guirlande Saint Vil sued alleging wrongful foreclosure, vagueness of Georgia’s foreclosure statute, and FDCPA violations; they proceeded pro se but had limited English and limited funds.
- A relative, Antoine Wilfrid (legally trained but not a Georgia-licensed attorney), researched and drafted their filings without being disclosed; filings were signed by the Saint Vils as pro se.
- Defendant SSH moved to investigate whether the Saint Vils had undisclosed counsel; the Saint Vils initially denied having assistance but later admitted Wilfrid’s involvement at status conferences.
- The magistrate judge: (1) denied leave to file a second amended complaint because it was drafted by Wilfrid; (2) ordered the Saint Vils to proceed either pro se (with a signed certification that no undisclosed attorney assisted) or be represented by counsel admitted to the court; and (3) warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions including dismissal.
- The Saint Vils repeatedly failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order (no notice to proceed pro se, no required certifications, continued filing of Wilfrid-drafted documents); the district court found willful contempt and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to file a second amended complaint should be allowed | The proposed amendment should be permitted; they are proceeding pro se and need to amend | The motion was drafted by an unlicensed non-attorney; improper under Rule 11 | Denial affirmed—motion drafted by Wilfrid was improper and magistrate gave opportunity to refile properly |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate sanction for noncompliance | Dismissal is too harsh; they cannot afford counsel and were effectively forced to choose between inadequate pleadings or unaffordable counsel | Willful contempt and continued failure to follow court orders justify dismissal | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed—clear pattern of noncompliance and lesser sanctions would be ineffective |
| Whether Wilfrid may assist or draft filings though not admitted | Wilfrid’s assistance was necessary and not illicit; Saint Vils relied on him | Unlicensed practice of law and undisclosed assistance undermined pro se status and Rule 11 requirements | Wilfrid could not represent or draft filings; undisclosed legal assistance was unacceptable |
| Whether court abused discretion in imposing Rule 41(b) dismissal | The court should not dismiss pro se litigants who make procedural errors | Dismissal is authorized for failure to comply with court orders, especially after warnings | No abuse of discretion—dismissal appropriate after forewarning and demonstrated contumacious conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
- Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) (pro se obligations reaffirmed)
- Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 1999) (Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with orders)
- Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (dismissal with prejudice requires contumacious conduct and finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (dismissal after forewarning is generally not an abuse of discretion)