Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Lillian Morris filed this lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in state court. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court and initially asked for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), or alternatively for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). The court granted the request for a more definite statement because much of Morris’s complaint was handwritten and illegible. The court gave instructions for preparing the complaint and provided contact information for the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Legal Help Center.

Morris did not file a compliant amended complaint by the original deadline. After Wells Fargo filed a motion under Rule 41(b), Morris mailed materials to the court, but they did not clearly respond to the motion or include an amended complaint that complied with the court’s earlier order. The court denied that earlier motion without prejudice and gave Morris four additional weeks to file an amended complaint, warning that this was her last opportunity. Morris again did not file a new complaint by the deadline. A later letter received by the Clerk’s Office was illegible and did not appear to be a complaint complying with the court’s requirements.

Ruling

Rule 41(b) allows a defendant to seek dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or an order. The court concluded that Morris had failed to comply with multiple court orders despite being given months to file a legible complaint. The court therefore granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) and dismissed Morris’s lawsuit with prejudice. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing because it found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument.