Piña v. The United States of America

Background

The court had previously imposed a $100 penalty on Frederick D. Piña for disobeying a court order. Piña did not pay by the original deadline or by later deadlines set by Magistrate Judge Moses. In March 2023, Judge Moses stayed the case until Piña paid the penalty and warned that unreasonable delay could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.

A separate order by Judge Engelmayer also barred Piña from filing further motions seeking reinstatement of his dismissed lost-business-opportunity claim unless he first obtained court approval by submitting a one-page letter explaining why the filing should be accepted.

Later filings and warnings

After more than two years without action, Piña filed a motion to reopen the stayed case and seek reconsideration under Rule 60(d)(3), followed by a motion for summary judgment. On April 4, 2025, the court denied both motions because Piña had not shown that he paid the $100 penalty and had not followed the filing-injunction requirement. The court warned that further sanctions, including dismissal, could follow if he did not pay.

Piña then submitted approximately twenty additional filings seeking various forms of relief, including summary judgment, reinstatement of the dismissed claim, and reconsideration. He still did not pay the penalty. On May 29, 2025, the court stated that the United States was not required to respond to further motions while the stay remained in effect and ordered Piña to pay the penalty and show cause, in writing, why the case should not be dismissed or another sanction imposed.

The court required Piña’s submission by June 13, 2025, and specified that it had to include proof of payment and show that he could respect the court’s authority, obey its orders, and refrain from abusive language. The court warned that failure to prove payment by that date would result in dismissal with prejudice. Piña did not submit the required filing by the deadline. He filed other materials and sent unsolicited emails to chambers instead. On June 18, he notified the court that he would no longer require judicial approval to resolve his Federal Tort Claims Act claim because he was pursuing administrative resolution.

Ruling

Judge Ho dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions for conduct that abuses the judicial process. The court directed the Clerk to close the case and ordered that no further filings by Piña would be considered. The order resolved the case on procedural grounds and did not decide the underlying negligence claim on its merits.