Smith v. United States, 697 F. App'x 582

Dennis and Bruce Smith filed a pro se pleading titled “Complaint Amended Declaratory Judgment and Mandatory Injunction” in district court on April 18, 2017.
The district court ordered them to either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis and to refile on the court-approved complaint form, warning that failure to cure within 30 days would result in dismissal.
The Smiths did not comply: their filing within the 30-day window was a largely nonsensical document that did not address the specified deficiencies and purported to be a mock “Supreme Court” order signed by them.
The district court dismissed the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the order and failure to prosecute.
On appeal the Smiths again filed incoherent documents and identified themselves as “Holding office in and for the Country of the said United States.”
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, denied in forma pauperis status on appeal, and reminded the Smiths of the obligation to pay the filing fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order was proper	Smiths implicitly argued their filings sufficed; they attempted to cure within deadline	District court argued Smiths failed to cure specified deficiencies and noncompliant filings justified dismissal	Affirmed: district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice
Whether the district court provided adequate notice and opportunity to cure	Smiths contended they filed a document within the 30-day period	District court showed it gave clear instructions and a 30-day warning of dismissal	Held that the opportunity and notice were adequate
Whether pro se status required the court to act as advocate for the Smiths	Smiths’ filings suggested entitlement to liberal construction due to pro se status	Defendant/court argued liberal construction does not permit the court to be the litigant’s advocate	Held that pro se status does not excuse failure to present coherent, substantive arguments
Whether in forma pauperis status on appeal should be granted	Smiths moved to proceed IFP on appeal	Appellee opposed based on frivolousness and lack of reasoned argument	Denied: Smiths failed to present a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on appeal

Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2003) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders)
Cosby v. Meadors, 351 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for failure to comply reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (distinction between dismissals with prejudice and without prejudice; procedural requirements differ)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but courts need not act as advocate)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (failure to present substantive argument results in forfeiture of appellate review)
DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (in forma pauperis may be denied where appellant fails to advance a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument)