Day v. Ellison
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:23-cv-03826
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Day v. Ellison, Judge Magnuson dismissed the complaint without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to respond; defendants’ motion was denied as moot.
Roger Jerome Day, M.D.’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Dan Ganin’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot, and the scheduled hearing was canceled.
What happened
In Day v. Ellison, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff’s response was due July 18, 2024, but he filed neither a response nor a request for more time.
The court canceled the hearing scheduled for August 8, 2024. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case, meaning he failed to move it forward.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot and ordered that judgment be entered. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Day v. Ellison · No. 0:23-cv-03826
- Paul Magnuson
- July 29, 2024
Background
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 26, 2024. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, the plaintiff’s response was due within 21 days, or by July 18, 2024. The plaintiff filed neither a memorandum opposing the motion nor a request for additional time.
Court’s Action
The court relied on its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with procedural requirements. “Failure to prosecute” means failing to move the case forward. The court canceled the hearing scheduled for August 8, 2024, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
The order states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was DENIED as moot. It separately states that the complaint was DISMISSED without prejudice because of the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The order also directed that judgment be entered. The court did not reach the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.