Peterson v. Archstone Communities LLC, 394 U.S. App. D.C. 482

Peterson, appearing pro se, sued Archstone for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the DC Human Rights Act after rejections from Archstone in 2006 and 2007.
Discovery disputes were referred to a magistrate in 2009; a hearing was scheduled for multiple discovery-related motions, including sanctions and protective orders.
Peterson did not attend the November 3, 2009 discovery hearing; Archstone appeared and the magistrate proceeded in Peterson's absence.
The district court issued an Order to Show Cause for dismissal for lack of prosecution, noting Peterson’s nonappearance, and dismissed the case.
The district court did not find any prior misconduct by Peterson, did not impose lesser sanctions, and did not warn that future nonappearance would trigger dismissal.
The DC Circuit vacated the dismissal, concluded the district court abused its discretion by imposing dismissal without findings of egregious conduct or prior warnings, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was dismissal for lack of prosecution an abuse of discretion?	Peterson argues dismissal was unwarranted and no egregious conduct occurred.	Archstone contends that Peterson’s nonappearance justified dismissal to prevent prejudice and waste of resources.	Yes, dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
Were lesser sanctions available before dismissal?	Court should have imposed lesser sanctions (e.g., treat as default on discovery) rather than dismissal.	District court could consider other sanctions but did not justify why dismissal was necessary.	Yes, lesser sanctions were available.
Did Peterson’s lack of intent or prior misconduct justify harsher punishment?	No prior misconduct or bad faith established governance for harsh discipline.	Peterson’s conduct showed disregard for procedure and warrants sanctions.	No evidence of egregious conduct; dismissal inappropriate.
Did the district court warn Peterson about potential dismissal for future nonappearance?	No warning was given about the consequences of failure to appear.	Warning not explicitly discussed in record.	Yes, lack of warning supports reversal.
Was prejudice to Archstone sufficient to justify dismissal?	Prejudice was not shown to the extent required for dismissal.	Prejudice arose from inability to proceed due to Peterson’s absence.	Prejudice not shown to the level required for dismissal.

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (district court dismissal for failure to prosecute reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Gardner v. United States, 211 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard; need for proper rationale in dismissal)
English-Speaking Union v. Johnson, 353 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (harsh sanctions require explanation of necessity)
Noble v. U.S. Postal Serv., 71 F. App'x 69 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (dismissal ordinarily limited to egregious conduct after lesser sanctions)
Camps v. C & P Tel. Co., 692 F.2d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (warning and lesser sanctions preceding dismissal; pro se treated with consideration)
Shea v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 795 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (district court must avoid undue prejudice when sanctioning)
Trakas v. Quality Brands, Inc., 759 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (context on sanctions and orderly adjudication)
Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (dismissal only after lesser sanctions fail)
Wooten v. Premier Yachts, Inc., 2000 WL 1683500 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (unpublished WL decision cited for comparison (not as a controlling authority))