[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 10666 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14

- cv - 01428

- MHC JEAN A. SAINT VIL, GUIRLANDE SAINT VIL,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v ersus

PERIMETER MORTGAGE FUNDING CORPOR ATION, et al., Defendants, WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., SHAPIRO, SWERTFEGER & HASTY, LLP, Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( October 31, 2017 ) Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 1 of 82 Before TJOFLAT , WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Jean and Guirlande Saint Vil appeal the dismissal of their action alleging that Georgia’s foreclosure statute was unconstitutionally vague ; wrongful
foreclosure ; and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. They argue that the magistrate judge abus ed his discretion by denying their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. They argue as well that
the district court abused i ts discretion by dismissing their complaint with prejudice

. After careful consideration, we affirm.
I. The Sai nt Vils have limited English

- speaking skills and lack the means to hire an attorney to assist them in prosecuting their civil cas e. They have a relative, however , named Antoine Wilfrid, who lives in Haiti and has some legal training , but is not a member of the State Bar of Georgia. Wilfrid assisted the Saint Vils in preparing their court filings , including a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint

. The Saint Vils did not disclose this t o the district court, but instead

r epresenting themselves to be proceeding pro se and signing all their filings personally.
I n October 2014, defendant Shapiro, Swertfeger & Hasty, LLP (“SSH”) filed a motion alleging that the Saint Vils’ filings were too legally sophisticated to be

Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 2 of 83 the work of pro se litigants and asking the court to order them to appear before the court and disclose whether an attorney had assisted them. T he Saint Vils filed a response denying they had counsel assist in the preparation of their filings , and the dis trict court denied SSH’s motion as moot

. T he magistrate judge then held a status conference on February 26, 2016 , during which Jean Saint Vil was questioned a b out his need for an interpreter. Jean Saint Vil admitted that Wi lfrid had been assisting i n researching and drafting the filings

. A nother status conference was held on March 16, 2016, during which the Saint Vils confirmed through an interpreter that Wilfrid had assisted them in filing all their pleadings

. T h e magistrate judge explained this was unaccept able.
T he next day, the magistrate judge issued an order denying the Saint Vils’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The order directed the Saint Vils to either proceed pro se or be represented by counsel admitted to practice be fore the court. The order also directed that Wilfrid could not represent the Saint Vils or draft their filings since he was not an attorney admitted to practice before the court. The magistrate judge said he could not condone the conduct in the case, which resulted in the Saint Vils being given consideration as pro se litigants while secretly bei n g represented by a person with legal training. The magistrate judge instructed the Saint Vils not to file or s erve any more documents that Wilfrid had

Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 3 of 84 participated in drafting or researching. He informed the Saint Vils that he would entertain a motion for contempt for any such future filing

. The magistrate judge granted the Saint Vils until March 31, 2016 to ob tain counsel to represent them or notify the court in writing that they would be proceeding pro se . He denied the Saint Vils’ motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint because it had been drafted by Wilfrid. However, he gave them until Apri l 8, 2016 to file an amended complaint drafted by a retained attorney or by themselves proceeding pro se . The magistrate judge instructed the Saint Vils that if they elected to proceed pro se , their amended complaint and all
other documents filed in this case should include above their signatures the following certification: “We hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that we have authored the foregoing document without assistance from Antoine Wilfrid or any other undisclosed a ttorney.” He informed the Saint Vils that failure to include the certification would be grounds for striking the document and failure to comply with his o rder could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action. The Saint Vils failed to comply wi th the magistrate judge’s order. They filed an objection to the order challenging the prohibition on Wilfrid’s assistance, without first filing a notice to proceed pro se , or including the required

Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 4 of 85 certification. 1 O n December 15, 2016, on SSH’s motion for contempt, the magistrate judge issued a final report and recommendation ( “ R&R ” ) recommending dismissal of the complaint with prejudice due to the Saint Vils’ failure to comply with his order . He also recommended the district judge hold a show cause hearing on why the Saint Vils should not be held in contempt of court. Again, t he Saint Vils filed an objection without including the required certification. The Saint Vils argued, in part, that the magistrate judge’s order required them to either file an inadequate pleading or hir e an attorney they could not afford. The district court found a clear record of willful contempt in light of the Saint Vils’ admission that Wilfrid assisted them in the preparation of every filing they had submitted to the court. Beyond that, the district court observed that the Saint Vils had given no indica tion they intended to comply with the magistrate judge’s order in the future. Although the district court declined to institute contempt proceedings, i t found that sanctions short of dismissal with prejudice of the Saint Vils’ complaint would not be effec tive

. The district court dismissed the Saint Vils’ complaint with prejudice.
II. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denia l of leave to amend a complaint. SFM Holdings, Ltd. v . Banc of Am. Sec ., LLC , 600 F.3d 1334, 133 6

1 T he content and style of this filing and later ones, including the Saint Vils’ briefs on appeal, are consistent with those researched and drafted by Wilfr i d.

Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 5 of 86 (11th Cir. 2010). We also review for abuse of discretion a district court’s di smissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Gratton v. Great
Am. Commc’ns , 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)

. People in federal court generall y “may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Even so , pro se litigants are required to conform to the procedural rules. See McNeil v. United States , 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S. Ct. 1980, 1984 (1993); Loren v. Sasser , 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)

. Rule 11 requires a party’s filings to be signed by an attorney for the party or by the party personal ly if proceeding pro se . Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (a)

.

“ The court must strike an unsigned paper unle ss the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention. ” Id.

“ Rule 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order or the federal rules. ” Gratton , 178 F.3d at 1374. Because dismissal with prejudice is an “extreme sanction, [it] may be properly imposed only when: (1) a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specificall y finds that les ser sanctions would not suffice.” Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V
MONADA , 432 F.3d 1333, 1337

– 38 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted)

. “[ D ] ismissal upon disregard of an order, e specially where the litigant has been

Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 6 of 87 forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion. ” Moon v. Newsome , 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
III.
T he magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the Saint Vils’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint

. T he motion for leave to amend was written by an unlicensed attorney but signed by the purported pro se litigants. It was t herefore improperly filed under Rule 11. And in any event , t he magistrate judge’s order still granted the Saint Vils an opportuni ty to file an amended complaint

. Neither did the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice the Saint Vils’ complaint. T he Saint Vils were warned of the po tential consequences of failing to comply with the magistrate judge’s order, including the possibility of dismi ssal of the action. Yet they failed to obtain a licensed attorney, even for the limited purpose of contesting the order and the R&R. The Saint Vils also failed to file a notice to proceed pro se and continued to file documents without including the certificate required by the magistrate judge’s order. More importantly, there is evidence to support a finding that the Saint Vils’ may have intended to deceive the court with respect to their pro se status

. I n October 2014, in response to SSH’s motion al leg ing an undisclosed attorney’s assistance , the Saint Vils vehemently den ied they had any counsel assist in the

Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 7 of 88 preparation of their filings. The Saint Vils’ current claims that they were complete ly cand id with the court and read il y admi tted Wilfrid’s assistance do not,
th erefore , comport with the record before us. In light of this history, we agree with the district court that the Saint Vils failed to provide a ny evidence or argument that they intended to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. We affirm the decision
of the district court to dismiss the Saint Vils’ complaint with prejudice

. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-10666 Date Filed: 10/31/2017 Page: 8 of 8