Mikell v. K&R Realty Inc.

Background

Kadeem Mikell, acting without a lawyer, filed an employment-discrimination action against K&R Realty Inc., Gina Chase, and Jet Hasimaj. K&R Realty Inc. was served on March 11, 2022, and Chase and Hasimaj were served on March 21, 2022.

Chase moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The court ordered Mikell to respond by May 9, 2022. When he did not respond, the court directed him to submit a status report and warned that failing to do so could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.

In June 2023, K&R Realty Inc. and Hasimaj moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). In November 2023, the court ordered Mikell to show good cause in writing why that motion should not be treated as unopposed. The court again warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Mikell filed nothing in response.

Court’s analysis

For a Rule 41(b) dismissal, the court considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders; whether the plaintiff had notice that noncompliance could lead to dismissal; likely prejudice to the defendants from further delay; the balance between the court’s need to manage its docket and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard; and whether a less severe sanction would work.

The court found that Mikell had repeatedly failed to comply with its directives since May 2022 and had delayed the case for nearly two years. It found that he had received clear warnings about the possibility of dismissal, that further delay was likely to prejudice the defendants, and that keeping the case open would burden the court and other litigants. The court also found that a lesser sanction would not be effective because Mikell had shown no interest in continuing the case despite several opportunities to respond.

Because Mikell was representing himself, the court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was the appropriate sanction. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the case from being filed again, although the opinion does not address whether any later filing would be permitted or timely.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the case, and mail Mikell a copy of the order. The court did not decide the merits of Mikell’s employment-discrimination allegations.