Little v. Derrick Walker and Lt. Moore
Jeremy Howard Isaiah Little v. Derrick Walker (Personal/Official Capacity) and Lt. Moore (Personal/Official Capacity)
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:25-cv-03430
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Jeremy Little v. Derrick Walker, Judge Wright recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denial as moot of defendants’ dismissal motion.
The recommendation affected plaintiff Jeremy Howard Isaiah Little and defendants Derrick Walker and Lt. Moore. It recommended ending the action without prejudice for Little’s failure to prosecute and denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, subject to possible objections and further district-court action.
What happened
Jeremy Howard Isaiah Little sued Derrick Walker and Lt. Moore. The defendants removed the case from state court and asked the federal court to dismiss all claims. Little did not respond by the court’s deadline.
Little later asked to pause the case, citing other proceedings, limited access to communication and writing materials, and a state-court finding that he was incompetent. The court extended his response deadline but otherwise denied the request. Little still did not file anything or communicate with the court.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denying the defendants’ dismissal motion as moot. The recommendation was not yet a final order or judgment, and the parties could object within the stated deadline.
The detailed version
- Little v. Derrick Walker and Lt. Moore · No. 0:25-cv-03430
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- July 9, 2026
Background
Jeremy Howard Isaiah Little began this action in state court on July 11, 2025. The defendants removed it to federal court on August 29, 2025. On October 22, 2025, the defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 to dismiss all claims with prejudice.
The court set December 1, 2025, as Little’s deadline to file a response and supporting documents. Little did not respond by that deadline.
Request to Stay and Later Inactivity
On January 5, 2026, the court received Little’s motion to stay the proceedings. Little cited multiple ongoing legal proceedings, limited access to phone calls and writing materials while detained at Hennepin County Jail, and a state-court finding of incompetency. He sought a stay until the state court found him competent, but also stated that he was not asking for a stay because he was inherently unable to write a response to the motion to dismiss.
The court concluded that Little’s statements showed he could respond to the motion and that he had not shown the specific hardship or unfairness required for a stay. On January 14, 2026, the court granted the motion to stay insofar as it extended Little’s deadline to respond to February 13, 2026, and otherwise denied the motion.
As of the report and recommendation, Little had not filed a response, made any other filing, or communicated with the court.
Recommendation
The court recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dismissal without prejudice means the recommendation did not bar refiling based on the dismissal itself. The court also recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as moot, meaning the court recommended not deciding that motion because the action would be dismissed for another reason.
This document was a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the district court, and therefore was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Under the cited local rule, a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.