Summary
The court issues an order to show cause because pro se Plaintiff Robert Tanner did not file an amended complaint after being granted leave to amend. Plaintiff is given 21 days to respond and file an amended complaint, with a warning that failure to do so will result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court may consider dismissal for failure to prosecute when Plaintiff failed to comply with the order granting leave to amend.
- Whether an order to show cause and an additional opportunity to amend should issue before recommending dismissal of the pro se Plaintiff's action.
Holdings
- A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with a court order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or local rules.
- The Court will first provide the pro se Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the order to show cause and file a compliant amended complaint before recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Key quotations
“A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where the plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules.” (1)
“Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court first attempts lesser sanctions by issuing this order to show cause.” (2)
Factual background
The district court previously dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend and gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file the amended complaint. Because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se, the magistrate judge attempted a lesser sanction before recommending involuntary dismissal and issued an order to show cause.
Procedural history
Plaintiff moved to remand, and Defendant moved to dismiss. Findings and Recommendations issued May 21, 2025 recommended denying remand, granting dismissal, and permitting amendment. The district court adopted those recommendations on June 25, 2025, granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. The magistrate judge issued this order to show cause, allowing 21 days to respond and amend and warning that failure to do so would result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute.