NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 2 4

- 1247

___________ DAVID J. CATANZARO , Appellant

v. DOES 1 THROUGH 50; WALMART, INC.; WALMART.COM

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ( M

. D. Pa. C ivil Action No. 3 : 2 2

- cv - 01 754 ) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 9 , 2024

___________ Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and CHUNG , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : July 1 2 , 2024 )

___________

OPINION *

___________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Appellant David Catanzaro, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his civil action for failure to identify Doe defendant s 1 through 50. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the order of the District Court and remand for further proceedin gs. Catanzaro’s operative second amended complaint asserted claims for patent infringement against Walmart, Inc., Walmart.com, and Does 1

- 50. On August 2, 2023,
Catanza r o filed a Stipulation of Dismissal “dismiss [ing] with prejudice all claims asserted in this action by Plaintiff as against Walmart, Inc. and Walmart.com.” D.Ct. ECF No. 23 at 1. The s tipulation indicated that it would “in no way affect Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Does 1 through 50.” Id. Walmart, Inc. and Walmart.com were te rminated as parties and, on August 10, 2023, the District Court ordered Catanzaro to identify Does 1

- 50 within thirty (30) days. Catanza r o was warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action. See D.Ct. ECF No. 24 at 1.
Catanza r o di d not respond within the allotted time frame. Instead, on September 14, 2023, he filed a “Motion for Reconsideration,” in which he indicat ed that he did not receive the District Court’s August 10 order through the mail and only learned of it on September 13, 2023, when viewing the case docket online. See D.Ct. ECF No. 25 at 1. Based upon his failure to receive timely notice of the order, Cat anza r o asked the court to terminate or vacate the August 10 order and allow him thirty days “to identify Does 1

- 50, and to amend the complaint to add said defendants.” Id. at 3.3 Almost four months later, t he District Court denied the motion and dismisse d the case. It noted that Catanza r o “failed to file a brief in support of his motion pursuant to the provisions of [Local Rule] 7.5, which itself mandates dismissal of the motion.” D.Ct. ECF No. 26 at 1. It further noted that, despite Catanza r o’s reques t for additional time and his assertion that he did not receive the District Court’s August 10 order, he still, as of the date of the dismissal, failed to file anything identifying the Doe defendants. Id. at 1

- 2.
Catanza r o appeals. We have jurisdiction p ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 We review for abuse of discretion “a district court’s application and interpretation of its own local rules.” Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. , 909 F.3d 604, 613 (3d Cir. 2018). Catanza r o argues, inter alia, that the Distri ct Court abused its discretion by denying his motion without consideration for his pro se status. We agree that the District Court abused its discretion in its consideration of
Catanza r o ’s motion . While pro se litigants “must abide by the same rules tha t apply to all other litigants,” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc. , 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013), their filings should be construed liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) , and based upon substance rather than label or title, see Lewis v . Att’y Gen. , 878 F.2d 714, 722 n.20 (3d Cir. 1989). Here, while Catanza r o titled his motion as one for

1 Although the District Court did not indicate whether its dismissal of the Doe defendants was with or without prejudice, a without prejudice dismissal nevertheless constitutes a “final” decision under § 1291 where the statute of limitations would prevent refiling. See Green v. Humphrey Elevator & Truck Co. , 816 F.2d 877, 878 n.4 (3d Cir. 1987).4 reconsideration, it is more properly construed as a motion for an extension of time. As the District Court’s own standing order in pro se cases makes clear, such motions do not require a brief “if the reasons for the request are fully stated in the motion.” D.Ct. ECF
No. 4 at 1. Accordingly , it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to deny
Catanza r o’s motion on the grounds that he failed t o include a separate brief. We further conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Catanza r o’s motion because he failed

t o file anything identifying the Doe defendants while he waited on the District Court to rule on his motion. Catanza r o should not be penalized for waiting on the Court’s consideration of his extension request to determine whether such a filing would be both permissible and timely. Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order denying Catanza r o’s motion and dismissing the case . We will remand for the District Court to con sider, in the first instance, whether Catanza r o’s motion, properly construed as a motion for an extension of time, should be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).