Salih v. Fremont Police Department
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:26-cv-07927
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Salih v. Fremont Police Department, Judge Breyer dismissed the case after plaintiff Vincent Lee Salih failed to respond to a court order explaining why his claims should not be dismissed as duplicative.
Individuals who attempt to re-file lawsuits raising claims that have already been dismissed with prejudice, and litigants who fail to respond to court orders requiring them to justify why their case should continue.
What happened
In Salih v. Fremont Police Department (Case No. 26-cv-07927-CRB), Vincent Lee Salih filed a lawsuit against the Fremont Police Department raising claims that the court identified as identical to those in a prior case that had already been dismissed with prejudice — meaning Salih was permanently barred from re-litigating those claims.
The court previously issued a formal order requiring Salih to show cause — that is, to explain in writing — why the new case should not also be dismissed. The court warned Salih that failing to respond would be treated as a failure to comply with a court order and could result in dismissal. Salih did not respond.
Because Salih failed to respond as directed, Judge Charles R. Breyer exercised the court's inherent authority and dismissed the case. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal for a plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders.
The detailed version
- Salih v. Fremont Police Department · No. 3:26-cv-07927
- Kandis Westmore
- Aug. 24, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Vincent Lee Salih filed this action against the Fremont Police Department. The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive claims in detail, but the court noted that the claims in this case were the same as those raised in a prior action that had been dismissed with prejudice — meaning the prior dismissal was a final, binding adjudication barring re-litigation of those claims.
Prior Court Action
Before dismissing the case, the court issued an order to show cause (OSC) — a procedural mechanism requiring a party to provide written justification for why the court should not take a specified action, here dismissal. The court expressly warned Salih that failure to respond to the OSC would be treated as failure to comply with a court order and would warrant dismissal.
Plaintiff's Non-Response
Salih did not respond to the order to show cause. The opinion states no explanation or filing was received.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case, invoking its inherent power to dismiss actions sua sponte (on the court's own initiative, without a motion from a party). The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, as well as the Ninth Circuit's decision in Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 1999). The opinion does not specify whether this dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Notes on the Record
The judge's signature block in the opinion reads 'CHSRLES / BREVES,' which appears to be a typographical rendering of 'Charles R. Breyer.' This summary uses the name as it appears in the case caption context. The opinion does not elaborate on the nature of Salih's underlying claims or any other procedural history beyond what is described above.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.