Sandy Brietzke and Joshua Brietzke v. Cross County Mortgage, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Sandy and Joshua Brietzke’s action without prejudice for failure to comply with a prior order requiring proper applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that Sandy Brietzke’s response and attached affidavit did not satisfy the asset-disclosure requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), and that Joshua Brietzke had not signed the filing or submitted his own application.

Holdings

1. The action must be dismissed without prejudice because Sandy Brietzke failed to file the new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis required by the court's prior order, and her response did not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
2. Although courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or applicable local rules.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the action should be dismissed when the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's prior order requiring a compliant motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the other plaintiff failed to sign the required filing.
2. Whether a pro se litigant is excused from complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.

Disposition

dismissed