Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2023

Purdy v. Wilkins

Judge
Susan Nelson
Docket
0:21-cv-00315
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Purdy v. Wilkins, Judge Nelson dismissed the action without prejudice because Purdy did not pay the required initial partial filing fee.

Who this affects

Jeffrey Colin Purdy's action against Stephanie Wilkins, Justin Neumann, Chris Baukol, Jesse Gilbertson, and Patrick M. Rielly was dismissed without prejudice because Purdy did not pay the required initial partial filing fee.

What happened

In Purdy v. Wilkins, the court required Jeffrey Colin Purdy to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $43.33 for the case to continue. The court gave him 20 days to pay.

Purdy did not pay the required fee by the deadline. The court therefore dismissed the action for failing to prosecute, meaning he did not move the case forward as required.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Purdy v. Wilkins · No. 0:21-cv-00315
Judge
Susan Nelson
Date
Mar. 29, 2023

Background

Jeffrey Colin Purdy, who represented himself, brought this action against Stephanie Wilkins, Justin Neumann, Chris Baukol, Jesse Gilbertson, and Patrick M. Rielly. On February 28, 2023, the court lifted the stay in the action and ordered Purdy to submit an initial partial filing fee of at least $43.33 if he wanted the case to proceed. The court gave him until March 20, 2023, to pay.

Court’s ruling

Purdy did not submit the required fee by the deadline. The court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or comply with a court order.

Disposition

The court ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice. This means the dismissal did not bar refiling, subject to any applicable requirements or limitations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.