Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security
Zakariya Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security; Immigration and Custom Enforcement, St. Paul Field Office; Immigration Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit (HQPDU) Washington DC; District Directors and Directors of Detention and Removal Field Offices; and J. Reller, Deportation Officer St. Paul MN Field Office
- Bullard
- 0:26-cv-02649
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Zakariya Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Bullard recommended dismissal without prejudice after Abdikarim failed to pay the filing fee.
Zakariya Abdikarim and his action against the named defendants; the recommended dismissal is without prejudice and remains subject to the district court’s review after any objections.
What happened
In Zakariya Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security, Zakariya Abdikarim asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had denied that request because it found he had at least three prior qualifying dismissals, called “strikes,” under federal law.
The court gave Abdikarim until June 3, 2026, to pay the fee and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for not pursuing the case. The deadline passed, and he did not pay or request other relief.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This report and recommendation is not a final order, and it is not directly appealable; the parties may file written objections within the stated deadline.
The detailed version
- Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security · No. 0:26-cv-02649
- Bullard
- June 10, 2026
Background
Zakariya Abdikarim brought this action against the Department of Homeland Security and the other defendants identified in the caption. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
On May 20, 2026, the court denied Abdikarim’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which applies when a prisoner or other qualifying litigant has accrued three or more prior “strikes.” The court directed Abdikarim to pay the filing fee by June 3, 2026, and warned that failure to pay could result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Ruling
The payment deadline passed. Abdikarim had not paid the filing fee and had not sought other relief. Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard therefore recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation does not itself bar a later refiling, although the opinion does not address any requirements that might apply to a new case.
Procedural status
The document is a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the district court. It states that the recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Under the cited local rule, a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served, and a party may respond to objections within 14 days after being served with them.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.