Andrews v. Pittman

Background

Mark Terrence Andrews, who was represented by counsel, filed the action on April 24, 2025. Robert Pittman and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss Andrews’s complaint on June 26, 2025. Andrews did not timely oppose that motion. He did file a motion to disqualify defense counsel, but the opinion does not state that the court ruled on that motion.

Failure to Prosecute

Because Andrews did not oppose the motion to dismiss, the court issued an order requiring him to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order warned that failing to respond could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss an action when a party fails to move the case forward or comply with a court order. Andrews did not file an opposition or respond to the order by the July 29, 2025 deadline.

The court weighed five factors: the public’s interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, possible prejudice to the defendants, whether less severe measures were available, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. The court concluded that four of the five factors supported dismissal. Andrews had not explained his delay, and the court had already warned him that dismissal was possible. The factor favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal.

Disposition

Judge Sallie Kim DISMISSED the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. The opinion’s final text also contains the phrase “Defendants’ motion to cause is DISCHARGED,” which appears corrupted and does not clearly identify the motion or order being discharged.