Afifi v. Chiang

Background

Sabrina Afifi filed this action on September 29, 2025. The opinion says she asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. She alleged that Tina Chiang, identified as her former landlord, discriminated against her based on disability and familial status, failed to make needed repairs, made false statements about her conduct that prevented her from receiving emergency housing, and interfered with her children’s education.

Chiang filed a motion to dismiss on December 30, 2025. Afifi did not respond. On February 5, 2026, the court ordered Afifi to respond by February 19, 2026, and to explain why she had not responded to the motion. The court warned that the case was likely to be dismissed if she did not respond. Afifi also did not respond to that order. The court later issued an order to show cause concerning whether Afifi should be declared a vexatious litigant; Afifi responded to that order, and the court declared her a vexatious litigant.

Issue and governing standard

The issue was whether to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Failure to prosecute means not taking required steps to move a case forward. The court explained that dismissal is a severe sanction and considered five factors: the public interest in resolving litigation promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the defendant, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and the availability of less severe alternatives.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the first factor favored dismissal because Afifi did not respond to the motion to dismiss or the order to show cause. The second factor favored dismissal because her repeated failures interfered with docket management. The third factor also favored dismissal because Afifi offered no explanation for her failures to comply. The fourth factor weighed against dismissal because public policy favors resolving cases on their merits, but the court stated that Afifi was not precluded from litigating the claims when she was prepared to comply with court orders. The fifth factor favored dismissal because the court had given Afifi two weeks to respond, expressly warned her that dismissal could result, and waited several months without receiving the required response.

Disposition

The court held that four of the five factors supported dismissal. It dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), expressly stating that the dismissal was without prejudice. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case. The opinion does not resolve whether Afifi’s underlying statutory or other claims are legally valid. The judge’s full name cannot be determined from the supplied text; the signature appears only partially as “JON S. TIG.”