Whether lower courts must refrain from using the sanction of dismissal unless egregious conduct justifying dismissal is committed in the face of direct, specific warnings in advance because dismissals impair with the right of access to the Courts and due process of law

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. The district court below dismissed Petitioner’s complaint with prejudice based upon a false representation made by Respondent and without providing Petitioner a specific warning required by case law going back to the early 1990s, when the Court last reviewed the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. The court of appeals glossed over the Draconian dismissal in a summary, unpublished affirmance. Respondent and its counsel were effectively rewarded for their false representation instead of being themselves sanctioned. The question before the Court is whether lower courts must refrain from using the sanction of dismissal unless egregious conduct justifying dismissal is committed in the face of direct, specific warnings in advance because dismissals impair with the right of access to the Courts and due process of law.