Williams v. Howard
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:20-cv-00439
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Williams v. Howard, Judge Menendez dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and deemed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion moot.
Terrence T. Williams’s case was dismissed without prejudice, while the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was deemed moot.
What happened
In Williams v. Howard, Terrence T. Williams did not respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment by the required deadline. The court gave him additional time and warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal.
Williams still did not respond, and he did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case be dismissed. The court presumed he received the mailed order because it was sent to his updated address and was not returned as undeliverable at that time.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez adopted the recommendation, deemed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court found no indication that Williams’s failure was willful or part of intentional delay and noted his housing insecurity.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Howard · No. 0:20-cv-00439
- Katherine Menendez
- May 12, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on November 12, 2021. Williams’s response was due December 3, 2021, but he did not file one. A magistrate judge then ordered Williams to file either an opposition to the motion or a statement that he did not oppose it by December 28, 2021. The order warned that failing to meet the deadline could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Williams later notified the court that his address had changed and asked for more time. The magistrate judge granted him an additional 60 days and again warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal without prejudice. The first mailing of that order went to Williams’s former address and was returned, but the Clerk of Court sent it again to his updated address. The record did not show that the second mailing was returned.
Report and Recommendation
After the extended deadline passed, Williams still had not responded to the summary-judgment motion. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Williams filed no objections to that recommendation.
Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court concluded that the record supported the finding that Williams had missed deadlines established by court rules and orders. It also agreed that the court could presume Williams received the order mailed to his updated address because it was not returned as undeliverable at that time.
The court noted that the recommendation itself was later returned as undeliverable. A Clerk’s Office representative spoke with Williams, who said his address was still correct and that his postal problems had been resolved. The recommendation was mailed again, and the record did not indicate that the new mailing was returned. Williams still did not object or otherwise contact the court.
Ruling
Judge Katherine M. Menendez adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court deemed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment moot, meaning it did not decide that motion because the case was being dismissed on another ground. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court stated that the record did not show willful disobedience or a pattern of intentional delay and acknowledged the difficulties Williams faced while litigating as a pro se party and experiencing housing insecurity.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.