Mansaray v. Krous Security Service

Background

Mohamed K. Mansaray filed this action on February 18, 2020. The opinion states that he was proceeding without a lawyer and under a status allowing him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The defendants are Krous Security Service and Robinson, identified in the caption as Security Director.

Motion and Court’s Instructions

On July 2, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court had not received a response from Mansaray when it issued this order.

The court ordered the defendants to file proof of service—evidence that they gave Mansaray a copy of the motion—by August 7, 2020. It ordered Mansaray to file either a response to the motion or a letter stating that he did not intend to respond by August 24, 2020. If Mansaray said he intended to continue the action but chose not to oppose the motion, the court stated that it would treat the motion as fully submitted for decision.

Warning and Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order. She warned that, if Mansaray did not respond to the order, respond to the motion, or request an extension by August 24, 2020, the court might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also ordered the defendants to provide Mansaray with a copy of the order.