UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MUHAMMAD ROBBALAA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES; U.S.D.A. RURAL DEVELOPMENT; LILLIE MAE LYONS; BERTHA CLAYTON; HOWARD CONSTRUCTION CO.; U.S.D.A. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL RIGHTS; U.S.D.A. DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF SMALL & DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS UTILIZATION,

Defendants-Appellees.	No. 97-7144

(D.C. No. 97-CV-454)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, EBEL and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant Muhammad Robbalaa ("Robbalaa") filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma against the United States and various private entities alleging violation of his civil rights and breach of contract. (ROA 1 at 1-3). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the district court set the case for a Status & Scheduling Conference on September 30, 1997.1 Robbalaa failed to appear at the conference. (ROA 8). Robbalaa did not contact the district court to inform it of his inability to attend, to ask for a continuance, or to reschedule. (ROA 17). As a result, the district court dismissed Robbalaa's complaint "for failure of Plaintiff to appear and prosecute." (ROA 8).

Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Plead, which the district court granted. Robbalaa then filed a Motion to Reinstate for Failure to Appear. Robbalaa argued that the district court should have excused his failure to appear because (1) he had a death in the family requiring travel to Michigan, (2) road construction hampered his travel, (3) he had been unable to secure the services of an attorney, (4) the merits of his complaint outweighed any excusable error in failing to appear; and (5) he promised not to miss any future conferences. (ROA 11). The district court denied Robbalaa's motion:

Plaintiff's stated reasons for his non-attendance are inadequate as no details or particulars are provided regarding the "family death" or the "circumstances of road construction" to enable the court to assess the validity of a conflict or 'inability to attend' argument. Finally, Plaintiff's unsuccessful efforts to engage counsel does not excuse this pro se Plaintiff from attending scheduled court hearings.

(ROA 17 at 2). Robbalaa now appeals.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to impose sanctions on a party who fails to follow a scheduling order. See M.E.N. Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc., 834 F.2d 869, 872 (10th Cir. 1987). A district court has the power to dismiss a case for the plaintiff's failure to comply with a district court's scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) & 37(b)(2)(c);2 E.D. Okla. Local Civ. R. 16.1;3 Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).

Robbalaa does not contest the district court's conclusion that he had notice of the conference and failed to inform the district court of his impending absence. Rather, Robbalaa claims that the district court erred by not giving due deference to his pro se status. Although we are obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants must "follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Matter of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984) (noting that while a district court should not punish a party for wrongful conduct by his attorney, if the party himself is at fault, then "the impact of the sanction should be lodged" directly against the party). "Although dismissal is indeed a drastic sanction, we have repeatedly upheld dismissals in situations where the parties themselves neglected their cases or refused to obey court orders." Green, 969 F.2d at 917 (citing cases). The district court allowed Robbalaa a full and fair opportunity to provide sufficient justification for his absence. Because Robbalaa does not argue on appeal that any of the reasons he proffered adequately explain his failure to attend the conference, he has failed to demonstrate any excusable neglect. As a result, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint.

AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge