Ducasse v. King
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-00627
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ducasse v. King, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends dismissing the case without prejudice because plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr. stopped participating in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs who file federal lawsuits and then fail to participate in the litigation process, miss court deadlines, or ignore court orders directing them to respond — particularly those litigating without a lawyer.
What happened
In Ducasse v. King, No. 24-CV-627, plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr. filed a lawsuit in February 2024 against defendant Mark King in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. After King filed his answer and the court issued a scheduling order, King moved for summary judgment (a request for the court to rule in his favor without a trial) in October 2025. Ducasse failed to respond to that motion, and had not participated in the case at all since spring 2024 despite several court orders directing him to do so.
The court notes that Ducasse missed multiple deadlines to file a response to King's motion for summary judgment. The court issued three separate briefing orders — in September, October, and November 2025 — requiring Ducasse to respond, but he did not comply with any of them. The court does not address the merits of the underlying claims in its recommendation.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommends dismissing the case without prejudice — meaning Ducasse would not be permanently barred from refiling — under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows courts to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to actively pursue it. Because this is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge rather than a final order from a district judge, the parties may object to it, and the assigned district judge will make the final decision.
The detailed version
- Ducasse v. King · No. 0:24-cv-00627
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Hiram Ducasse, Jr. filed this lawsuit in February 2024 against Defendant Mark King in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the nature of the underlying claims. There was an initial delay related to determining Ducasse's eligibility to proceed without paying court fees (in forma pauperis status) and completing service of process on King.
King filed an Answer to the Complaint on October 10, 2024. Two weeks later, the court issued a Scheduling Order setting a discovery deadline of June 23, 2025, a dispositive motions deadline of August 25, 2025, and a trial-readiness date of December 23, 2025.
Procedural History
King filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 25, 2025. Ducasse filed no response. The court also states that Ducasse has not engaged with the litigation at all since the spring of 2024. The court issued three successive briefing orders — in September, October, and November 2025 — directing Ducasse to respond. He did not comply with any of them.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case, fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or fails to comply with a court order. The court cites Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008), for the proposition that such a dismissal is within the district court's discretion.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court does not reach the merits of Ducasse's claims or King's summary judgment motion. Because this is a Report and Recommendation — not a final order — the district judge assigned to the case (identified in the caption as Judge ECT) must review it. Parties may file objections to the recommendation before the district judge issues a final ruling.
Note on Scope
The opinion is entirely procedural. The court makes no findings on the substance of Ducasse's claims against King.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.