UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

MARTI LUNDAHL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

and 

HOLLIE TELFORD, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GLOBAL E. LLC d/b/a PIONEER PARK 

MHC; LINCOLN COUNTY DISTRICT 

JUDGE, a/k/a Nena James, in her official 

capacity; CENTURYLINK PUBLIC 

COMMUNICATIONS INC.; ANN 

CLAYTON, individually; JUDY 

CARRILLO, individually; MICHAEL 

STULKEN, individually, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 15-8120 

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00178-SWS) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 *

 After examining the appellant’s brief and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Marti Lundahl appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint based on 

co-plaintiff Hollie Telford’s failure to abide by certain filing restrictions.1

 Because 

we conclude the district court didn’t abuse its discretion, we affirm. 

In 2014, the district court imposed filing restrictions on Holli Lundahl. 

Specifically, the district court enjoined “Holli Lundahl (and all of her aliases, 

including ‘Holli Telford’)” from proceeding as a plaintiff in the District of Wyoming 

unless a Wyoming-licensed attorney represents her or she first receives permission to 

proceed pro se. R. vol. 1, at 61-62 (footnote omitted). The district court specifically 

listed “Marti Lundahl” as one of Holli Lundahl’s known aliases. R. vol. 1, at 61 n.1. 

In its order, the court warned that if Holli Lundahl submitted a pro se complaint 

without first obtaining permission to do so, it would summarily dismiss the 

complaint. 

In 2015, Marti Lundahl and Hollie Telford were listed as plaintiffs in a pro se 

complaint filed in the District of Wyoming. The district court dismissed the 

complaint, citing Holli Lundahl’s failure to obtain permission to proceed pro se as 

required by its previous order. The court noted that its previous order applied to Holli 

Lundahl if she proceeded under “some spelling variation of ‘Holli Telford’ or ‘Marti 

Lundahl.’” R. vol. 1, at 54. The district court acknowledged that Holli Lundahl has a 

sister named Marti Lundahl. Nevertheless, the court noted that it was “also apparent 

 1

 Because Marti Lundahl proceeds pro se, we construe her brief liberally. See

Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1243 n.4 (10th Cir. 2015). But we won’t act as 

her advocate by formulating arguments or scouring the record on her behalf. See id. 
3 

Holli Lundahl simply uses her sister as a pawn in Holli’s vexatious litigation tactics” 

and cited similar activities in a previous case in the same court. R. vol. 1, at 54 n.1. 

Marti Lundahl appeals,2

 arguing she isn’t bound by the district court’s 

previous order imposing filing restrictions on Holli Lundahl because she wasn’t a 

party to that case. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to 

dismiss based on a party’s failure to comply with a court order. Gripe v. City of Enid, 

312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002). 

An injunctive order binds a nonparty who is “in active concert or participation 

with” a party and has actual notice of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C). Such an 

order binds a participating nonparty because if courts didn’t have the authority to do 

so “the named parties could easily thwart the injunction by operating through others.” 

ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 651 F.3d 1200, 1215 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting 

Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2008)). Accordingly, the 

rule encompasses an alter ego or someone who aids or abets the named party. See

Reliance Ins. Co. v. Mast Constr. Co., 84 F.3d 372, 377 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Here, Marti Lundahl correctly points out that she wasn’t a party to the action 

in which the district court imposed filing restrictions on her sister. But if we presume, 

as the district court did, that Holli Lundahl simply used Marti Lundahl’s name as her 

alter ego, the injunctive order expressly applied to “Marti Lundahl” as one of Holli 

 2

 This court dismissed Hollie Telford from this appeal for failing to comply 

with filing restrictions we previously imposed on Holli Lundahl. See Johnson v. 

Stock, 2005 WL 1349963, at *3-4 (10th Cir. 2005). We allowed the appeal to proceed 

with Marti Lundahl as the sole appellant. 
4 

Lundahl’s known aliases. R. vol. 1, at 61 n.1. And even if we presume Marti Lundahl 

genuinely participated, she aided her sister’s disobedience by jointly filing this suit as 

a co-plaintiff before her sister received the district court’s permission to proceed pro 

se.3

 Under both alternatives, Marti Lundahl is bound by the district court’s injunctive 

order, either as an alter ego or as an active participant aiding her sister. See Reliance, 

84 F.3d at 377; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C). Therefore, the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in dismissing the complaint, and we affirm the dismissal.4

 We also deny 

Marti Lundahl’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

 3

 Marti Lundahl’s brief recounts that in filing this suit, “Plaintiffs sent to the 

federal court . . . a petition to proceed pro se pursuant to a void contempt judgment 

issued by Judge Skavdahl” along with the complaint and other documents. Aplt. Br. 

at 4. Thus, Marti Lundahl had actual notice of the injunctive order as indicated by her 

awareness that she, as one of the plaintiffs, sent the court her sister’s petition to 

proceed pro se as required by the court’s order. 

4 Marti Lundahl raises other issues unrelated to the district court’s dismissal 

order, none of which were raised below. Generally, we don’t consider theories raised 

for the first time on appeal, and because there’s no argument for plain error, we 

decline to address these issues. See Martinez v. Angel Expl., LLC, 798 F.3d 968, 974 

(10th Cir. 2015).