Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations in Jacques v. Baker concerning dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice, denial of pending motions as moot, and closure of the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
- Whether the pending motions should be denied as moot following the recommended dismissal.
Holdings
- A district court may dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute, fails to obey a court order, or fails to comply with local rules, and dismissal without prejudice was warranted here because plaintiff ignored defendants' motion, the order to show cause, and the court's directive to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition after receiving an express warning.
- The pending motions should be denied as moot if the action is dismissed.
Key quotations
“A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.” (at 1)
“In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, I have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.”” (at 1-2)
Factual background
Plaintiff failed to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss. After the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed and directed him to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, plaintiff again failed to respond. The court had warned that noncompliance with the order would result in dismissal and later re-served the order after updating plaintiff's address.
Procedural history
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 15, 2025. Plaintiff did not timely respond, so the court ordered him to show cause and file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one days, expressly warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Plaintiff did not respond, and the court recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders; it also recommended that pending motions be denied as moot and the case closed, subject to district-judge review and objections.