PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2214

DR. ANILA DAULATZAI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 22-1816

DR. ANILA DAULATZAI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00590-JKB)

Argued: October 24, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1816 Doc: 47 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 2 of 24

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Harris joined.

Tonya Baña, TONYA BAÑA, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan Michael Stern, VICTOR RANE, PLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1816 Doc: 47 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 3 of 24

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

The captain of a Southwest Airlines flight scheduled to depart from Baltimore for

Los Angeles decided to remove Anila Daulatzai from the plane after receiving information

that Daulatzai was allergic to dogs, that two dogs were on the flight, and that flight

attendants were unwilling to fly in the circumstances. When Daulatzai insisted on

remaining in her seat despite the captain’s decision, Maryland Transportation Authority

police officers physically removed her from the plane and then charged her with disorderly

conduct and resisting arrest, among other offenses. And with Daulatzai’s consent, a state

judge found her guilty of disorderly conduct on an agreed statement of facts and placed her

on six months’ unsupervised “probation before judgment” on the condition that she pay a

fine and costs, all in accord with Maryland Code Criminal Procedure Article § 6-220(b)

(2017).

Daulatzai commenced this action against Southwest Airlines Co. and the State of

Maryland, alleging various grounds over three different versions of her complaint to

challenge both her removal from the plane and her arrest, and the defendants filed motions

to dismiss in response to each version. The district court dismissed the third version of

Daulatzai’s complaint for failure to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be

granted and entered a final judgment. Daulatzai appealed that judgment. Thereafter, while

her appeal was pending, she also filed a motion in the district court under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b), seeking to file a fourth version of her complaint with the district

court. The court, however, denied her request, finding that her efforts were pursued in bad

faith, that her repeated failures to cure defects in her pleadings had been prejudicial to the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1816 Doc: 47 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 4 of 24

defendants, and that the fourth complaint would, in any event, be futile. Daulatzai appealed

that ruling as well.

For the reasons given herein, we affirm the district court in both appeals.

I

On September 26, 2017, as Anila Daulatzai w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document