Cooley v. Summit

Background

The remaining claims concern Morye Cooley’s allegations that Summit Food Service violated his religious rights and provided nutritionally inappropriate food at the Dakota County Jail. Cooley alleged that Summit repeatedly failed to provide correct special-diet trays, gave him food to which he was allergic, and failed to accommodate meals required by his religion.

Cooley was litigating without a lawyer. Summit served interrogatories, document requests, and authorizations for access to records, including medical records. Cooley did not respond. Summit then asked the court to compel discovery. Cooley did not respond to that motion either.

On December 29, 2025, the court granted Summit’s motion to compel and ordered Cooley to provide signed answers to the interrogatories, responses and documents relating to the document requests, and completed record authorizations by January 30, 2026, unless the order was appealed. The court warned that failure to comply could result in additional sanctions, including a recommendation that the case be dismissed.

The court later found that Cooley did not comply with the discovery order. The record also showed that Cooley had been released to supervised release as of February 2, 2026, that mail sent to him was returned as undeliverable, and that he had not updated his address with the court.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) permits a court to sanction a party who fails to obey a discovery order. Possible sanctions include limiting evidence, striking pleadings, staying the case, dismissing the case in whole or in part, or entering a default judgment. The court explained that severe sanctions generally require an order compelling discovery, an intentional violation of that order, and prejudice to the other party.

The court also explained that dismissal with prejudice is a severe sanction and should be used only in exceptional circumstances, but that Rule 37 provides an independent basis for dismissing a complaint with prejudice when appropriate.

Analysis

The court found that Cooley willfully violated the December 29, 2025 discovery order. It reasoned that Cooley had failed to respond to discovery originally due in August 2025, failed to oppose the motion to compel, failed to comply with the order, and did not maintain a current address with the court. The court concluded that this conduct was intentional rather than accidental or involuntary.

The court also found that Summit was prejudiced. Summit could not obtain discovery needed to investigate Cooley’s claims, spent time and resources trying to obtain compliance, and faced a dispositive-motion deadline without meaningful discovery despite an extension of the deadlines.

The court considered less severe sanctions but concluded that they would not be effective because Cooley had not updated his address and therefore might not learn of them. It also reasoned that limiting claims, striking portions of the pleadings, or treating certain facts as established would not provide an effective alternative because Cooley had supplied no discovery needed to support his amended complaint.

Recommendation and effect

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that Summit’s Rule 37(b) motion for sanctions be granted and that Cooley’s amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The document is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals and that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.