Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services
- John Docherty
- 0:25-cv-03740
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ali v. State of Minnesota, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends dismissing Mohamed A. Ali's case without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee or respond to the court.
Mohamed A. Ali, the plaintiff, whose lawsuit against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services faces dismissal without prejudice due to his failure to pay the filing fee or submit a proper fee-waiver application.
What happened
This case, Mohamed A. Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services (Case No. 25-CV-3740), began when Mohamed A. Ali filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services. Ali also asked the court to let him proceed without paying the filing fee upfront — a request the court denied on September 25, 2025, because he did not provide sufficient financial information. The court gave him until October 16, 2025, to either submit a corrected fee-waiver application or pay the full filing fee.
Ali missed that deadline and, according to the court's records, has made no contact with the court at all since first filing the case. Because he failed to take the required steps to move his case forward, the court found grounds to recommend dismissal under the federal rule that allows courts to dismiss cases when a plaintiff stops participating in them (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)).
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued this Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Ali could potentially refile — for failure to prosecute. This recommendation is not a final order; it must be reviewed by a district court judge. Ali has 14 days from receiving this recommendation to file written objections if he wishes to challenge it.
The detailed version
- Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services · No. 0:25-cv-03740
- John F. Docherty
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali filed suit against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services in federal district court. Alongside his complaint, Ali filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis — that is, a request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, typically granted to litigants who demonstrate financial hardship. The court denied that application by Order dated September 25, 2025 (Dkt. No. 3), finding that Ali had not supplied the necessary financial information to support the request.
Court's Prior Order and Deadline
The September 25 Order directed Ali to take one of two corrective actions by October 16, 2025: (1) file a new, complete fee-waiver application with the required financial information, or (2) pay the full filing fee. The Order expressly warned Ali that failure to comply by the deadline would result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's Non-Compliance
The October 16, 2025 deadline passed without any action by Ali. The court noted that the docket reflects no communication from Ali whatsoever since he initiated the action — he neither filed a new fee-waiver application nor paid the filing fee.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants district courts discretion to dismiss an action for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with the Federal Rules or a court order. The court cited Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008), confirming this discretionary authority.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Because this is a Report and Recommendation — not a final order or judgment — a district court judge (identified by the initials JMB in the case number) must review it before it takes effect.
Objection Procedure
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of being served a copy. Responses to objections are permitted within 14 days of service of the objections. All objections and responses must comply with the word and line limits in Local Rule 72.2(c). The Report and Recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.