Cano v. Chisolm

Background

The case had been pending since February 2019. In January 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a case without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. In March 2024, the court paused the case at Cano’s request while a court order in Cano’s criminal cases was being resolved. The court continued the pause because Cano, who was incarcerated, reported difficulty accessing materials needed to oppose the defendants’ motion.

The court ordered the defendants to discuss Cano’s access problems and when the pause could end. Cano said she did not want to discuss ending the pause until after her release. According to the defendants, Cano was released on September 10, 2024. On November 13, 2024, the court ended the pause and ordered Cano to respond to the summary-judgment motion or contact the court by February 27, 2025. Cano did neither.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it. The court considered whether the failure caused a significant delay, whether Cano had notice that further delay could result in dismissal, whether further delay would likely prejudice the defendants, whether the court’s need to manage its calendar was balanced against Cano’s opportunity to have the case heard, and whether lesser sanctions could work.

The court found that all of these factors favored dismissal. The defendants’ motion had been pending for more than a year, and Cano had not responded despite multiple warnings. The court recognized that incarceration had made responding more difficult, but noted that the case had been paused for months and that Cano had months to respond after the pause ended. The court also found that prejudice could be presumed because Cano repeatedly failed to file court-ordered documents after being warned that dismissal was possible.

The court further found that the six-year-old case could remain on the court’s calendar indefinitely without a response and that lesser sanctions would not likely help because of Cano’s complete lack of responsiveness. The court did not decide the merits of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.

Ruling

Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the suit without prejudice to Cano’s right to reopen it if extenuating circumstances prevented her from responding to the court’s orders. The court stated that Cano could write to the court explaining the lack of responsiveness, after which the court would decide whether to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The clerk was asked to close the case.