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 argumen t would not material ly 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, 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 Court2 Marti Lundahl appeals the di strict 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 di scretion, 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 distri ct 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 warn ed that if Holli Lundahl su bmitted a pro se complaint without first obtaining permission to do so, it would summarily dismiss the complaint. In 2015, Marti Lundahl and Ho llie Telford were listed as plaintiffs in a pro se complaint filed in the District of Wyom ing. The district court dismissed the complaint, citing Holli Lundahl ’s failure to obtain permi ssion to proceed pro se as required by its previous order. The court noted that its previous order applied to Holli Lundahl if she proceeded unde r “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 pr oceeds pro se, we construe her brief liberally. See Eldridge v. Berkebile , 791 F.3d 1239, 1243 n.4 (10th Cir. 2015). Bu t 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 si ster as a pawn in Holli’s vexatious litigation tactics” and cited similar activities in a previous case in th e 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 fili ng restrictions on Holli Lund ahl 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 orde r. 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, 37 7 (10th Cir. 1996)

. Here, Marti Lundahl correct ly points out that she wasn’t a party to the action in which the district court imposed filing rest rictions 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 a pplied to “Marti Lundahl” as one of Holli

2 This court dismissed Hollie Telford fro m this appeal for failing to comply with filing restrictions we prev iously 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 ai ded her sister’s disobedience by jointly filing this suit as a co-plaintiff before her sister received the district court’s perm ission 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 dismi ssing 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 recount s that in filing this suit , “Plaintiffs sent to the federal court . . . a petition to proceed pr o 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 c ourt her sister’s petition to proceed pro se as require d by the court’s order.

4 Marti Lundahl raises other issues unrelat ed to the district court’s dismissal order, none of which were raised below. Ge nerally, we don’t consid er 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).