Manuel G. Lopez - Page 12




                                               - 12 -                                                  
            communication from his former attorney, respondent, and this                               
            Court.  The resolution of this case had been delayed because                               
            petitioner failed to cooperate with respondent in preparing the                            
            case for trial and appeared at the initial calendar call                                   
            unprepared for trial.  Petitioner’s actions in this proceeding                             
            have prejudiced respondent in that respondent has been required                            
            to devote hours of time trying to prepare this case for trial.                             
                  Although petitioner initially and currently appears before                           
            this Court in a pro se capacity, we see no reason to afford him                            
            any special protection as a pro se petitioner.  The Court of                               
            Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has noted that while “trial courts                          
            are encouraged to liberally treat procedural errors made by pro                            
            se litigants, especially when a technical or arcane procedural                             
            rule is involved, such tolerance does not extend to a litigant’s                           
            failure to appear in court without explanation or without                                  
            contacting the court beforehand.”  Id.  The Rules and orders of                            
            this Court that petitioner repeatedly violated were not technical                          
            or arcane.  Furthermore, petitioner was put on notice that his                             
            failure to appear may result in dismissal of his case.                                     
                  Petitioner’s conduct leaves no alternative other than                                
            dismissal for failure to properly prosecute.  No lesser sanction                           
            exists that would remedy petitioner’s failure to appear or                                 
            prosecute his case.  Pursuant to the foregoing, all matters for                            
            which petitioner bears the burden of proof are dismissed for                               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011