United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2766

___________

Yvonne A. Dockery, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Dr. Stacy Leonard; R. N. Lynn; *

Wadley Regional Medical Center, * [UNPUBLISHED]

and all delivery room personnel that *

worked in my room on Sept. 8th and *

Sept. 9th, 1999, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 29, 2002

 Filed: September 27, 2002

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Yvonne A. Dockery appeals the District Court’s dismissal of her medical

malpractice action with prejudice as a sanction for her failure to obey an order

compelling discovery. We remand to the District Court for further proceedings. 

Dockery brought her pro se lawsuit on September 8, 2000. On November 1,

the physician and medical center defendants (defendants) propounded interrogatories
-2-

and requests for production to Dockery, and on February 20, 2001, they moved for

an order compelling her response to discovery. The District Court granted

defendants’ motion and ordered Dockery to submit full and complete responses to the

discovery requests within eleven days. On May 10, defendants moved for sanctions

against Dockery for failing to comply with the order because she had not answered

all of the interrogatories or responded to any of the production requests. In a written

opposition, Dockery asserted that she had “done everything in [her] power” to comply

with the requests and had provided “answers to the best of [her] knowledge.” Brief

of Appellant at app. 88-89. Without holding a hearing, the District Court dismissed

the case with prejudice.

Sanctions imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 are reviewed for

abuse of discretion, with the sanction of dismissal reviewed more closely. See Martin

v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 2001). Rule 37 allows the

Court to consider numerous sanctions for failing to comply with an order compelling

discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)-(C) (possible sanctions include ordering

that matters regarding which order was made shall be taken as established for

purposes of action in accordance with claim of party obtaining order, refusing to

allow disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses,

prohibiting disobedient party from introducing designated matters into evidence,

striking out pleadings or parts thereof, staying further proceedings until order

compelling discovery is obeyed, dismissing action, or entering default judgment

against disobedient party). In light of Dockery’s pro se status and her assertion that

she was complying with the order to the best of her abilities, we conclude that the

dismissal was an abuse of discretion. See Keefer v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.

Co., 238 F.3d 937, 940-41 (8th Cir. 2001) (dismissal as sanction requires, inter alia,

finding of willful violation of order compelling discovery); Givens v. A.H. Robins

Co., 751 F.2d 261, 263 (8th Cir. 1984) (dismissal with prejudice is extreme sanction

and should be used only in cases of willful disobedience of court order or continued

or persistent failure to prosecute a complaint). On remand, if the District Court takes
-3-

up the question whether to impose a sanction other than dismissal, the Court is

directed to consider whether the interrogatories and document discovery requests

served less than two months following the filing of the complaint, and presumably

prior to the establishment of a pretrial deadline for the disclosure of expert witnesses,

were a reasonable way to conduct discovery of a plaintiff proceeding as a pro se

litigant.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.