Pantojas v. Ann

Background

Joshua M. Pantojas filed the action on October 17, 2024. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 25, 2025. Pantojas did not oppose that motion. He later filed a notice changing his address, and the court mailed its order to show cause to the updated address.

The court ordered Pantojas to explain why defendants’ motion should not be treated as unopposed. After service-related delays, the court extended his deadline to respond to June 30, 2025, and warned that failing to respond could lead to treating the motion as unopposed or dismissing the case for abandonment. Pantojas filed proof that he had served three defendants, but he did not respond to the order to show cause or to defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or an order. The court considered the required factors: how long Pantojas had failed to comply, whether he had notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to defendants from further delay, the balance between court docket management and Pantojas’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction might work.

The court concluded that the factors favored dismissal. It said Pantojas’s absence had prevented progress, that he had received ample opportunities to resume litigating or oppose the motion, and that further delay would prejudice defendants. The court also found that lesser sanctions did not appear likely to compel Pantojas’s attention.

Ruling

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered that the action be dismissed under Rule 41(b). The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.