Pro Se Status & ADA Accommodation Were Not a Shield Against Game-Ending Sanction

A pro se litigant unsuccessfully argued that (1) as a pro se litigant, she should not have been required to timely comply with all the rules; and, (2) she had requested and received an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to take “as much time as needed….”  Chieffallo v. Morgan Properties at Seneca Bay Apartments, 2025 WL 2331325 (Appl. Ct. Md. Aug. 13, 2025)(unreported; per curiam).[1]

Plaintiff sued the apartment complex where she lived asserting a series of claims. The court set a milestone discovery cutoff in its scheduling order.  Defendant propounded discovery and “[t]he day before her responses were due, [plaintiff] Chieffallo, without first attempting to contact [defendant] Morgan Properties, moved for an extension until April 21, 2024—the overall discovery deadline—to respond.”  The motion was denied.

Defendant reached out several times to request discovery responses.  Finally, plaintiff “produced partial answers to 3 of Morgan Properties’ 30 interrogatories and ended her response with “TO BE CONTINUED…”

Defendant again requested full responses. While they were not forthcoming, the court noted that plaintiff filed “numerous exhibits, outlines, and other statements that were not responsive to any specific inquires.”

Defendant’s motion to compel was granted.  Plaintiff failed to comply with the order compelling responses.

Defendant moved for sanctions and the case was dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed and the Court affirmed.

The Appellate Court wrote:

On appeal, Chieffallo essentially contends that, as a pro se litigant, she should not have been required “to follow all the rules in a restricted time-line[.]” In Maryland, however, “the procedural, evidentiary, and appellate rules apply alike to parties and their attorneys. No different standards apply when parties appear pro se.” …. Although we sympathize with pro se litigants, “we also need to adhere to procedural rules in order to maintain consistency in the judicial system.”

Id. at *2 (cleaned up; citations omitted).  Here, plaintiff had violated a court order.

The Court wrote:

In her brief, Chieffallo also asserts that she had requested an accommodation under the ADA to take “as much time as needed to complete tasks,” and she attached to her brief a copy of the email granting her request. But despite her claims on appeal, she was not granted a blanket accommodation to ignore court deadlines and pursue her case on her own schedule. The accommodation applied only to her hearings and is, therefore, irrelevant to her discovery failures.

Id.

____

[1] See Md. Rule 1-104 which governs effect of unreported per curiam decisions.