Zills v. Zehoski
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-03420
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Zills v. Zehoski, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Shaun Zills did not pay the required initial partial filing fee.
The recommendation concerns Shaun Zills's action against Matthew Zehoski, Ron Bergman, Michael Schneider, and Marthaller. It recommends ending the action without prejudice because Zills did not pay the required initial partial filing fee or otherwise communicate with the court.
What happened
In Zills v. Zehoski, the court had ordered Shaun Zills to pay at least $25.93 as an initial partial filing fee within 21 days. The court warned that failing to pay could lead to dismissal for not pursuing the case.
The deadline passed, but Zills did not pay the fee or communicate with the court after starting the case.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The recommendation was not a final order, and the notice allowed objections within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Zills v. Zehoski · No. 0:24-cv-03420
- John Tunheim
- Oct. 7, 2024
Background
The court had previously ordered Shaun Zills to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $25.93 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Zills received 21 days to make the payment. The court had warned that failure to pay would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Reasoning
The deadline passed without Zills paying the required fee. The report also states that Zills had not communicated with the court about the case since commencing it. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and a cited Eighth Circuit decision involving failure to pay an initial partial filing fee, the court recommended dismissal without prejudice.
Recommendation and procedure
The report recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, so it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice states that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report, and that responses to objections could be filed within 14 days after service of the objections.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.