Senty-Haugen v. Jesson

Background

Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen and two other individuals had initiated earlier litigation against the defendants. That litigation was later stayed while another case was resolved. After the stay was lifted in October 2022, Senty-Haugen moved to separate his claims from those of the other plaintiffs and asked for permission to amend the complaint.

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted those requests in January 2023 and ordered Senty-Haugen to file an amended complaint by February 2, 2023. He did not do so. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright then issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal under Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or orders.

Objection and analysis

Senty-Haugen objected to the recommendation. He argued that he could not provide an amended complaint because the original complaint had not been provided to him, and he stated that he had limited access to legal materials.

The court liberally interpreted his objections because he was representing himself. But the court explained that self-represented litigants must still comply with court orders and procedural law. The court found that Senty-Haugen had not provided a legitimate explanation for missing the deadline. It also noted that he had not asked for an extension of time and that the record did not show what efforts he had made to obtain the earlier complaint.

Ruling

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Senty-Haugen’s objection and adopted the February 13, 2023 Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order also directed that judgment be entered accordingly.