United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Smith Camp Chief United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Pro Se
Intervenors for Failure to Comply with Court Orders, ECF No.
884, filed by Defendant JBS USA, LLC (“JBS”). For
the reasons stated below, the Motion will be granted.
November 16, 2016, Phillip J. Robertson of CAIR-Chicago,
counsel for the Farhan Abdi, et al.,
Plaintiff/Intervenors (“CAIR”), filed an Amended
Motion to Withdraw, seeking to withdraw as attorneys for 19
Plaintiff/Intervenors: Faydero (Saynab) Abdirahman; Sugule
Ahmed; Sahra Botan; Mohamed Isak (or Isak Mohamed); Omar
Mohamed; Hawa Mohamud; Asha (Maryan) Muse; Hodan Sirad (Sugra
Olad); Abdirahman A. Yusuf; Bashir Abdi; Ahmed Adam; Mohamed
Adan; Mohamed Dhadin (Yusuf Soldad); Hassan Gabow; Abdikhadar
(or Abdikhader) Hassan; Mohamed Isman; Musa Abdalla Mohamed;
Ayan Osman; and Shire Abdirashid Ahmed (Ali Shire)
(collectively the “Plaintiff-Intervenors”). ECF
No. 881. CAIR noted that it had attempted to contact the
Plaintiff-Intervenors for several months but had not been
able to communicate with them. ECF No. 881, Page ID 17431.
Court granted the Amended Motion to withdraw on November 17,
2016. ECF No. 882. Mr. Robertson and CAIR-Chicago were
granted leave to withdraw as counsel for the
Plaintiff-Intervenors. Id. The Court ordered
CAIR-Chicago to serve copies of the Court's Order
immediately on each of the 19 Plaintiff-Intervenors.
Id., Page ID 17437. The Court also directed that
CAIR-Chicago file a proof of service with the Court, showing
compliance with the Order and listing the names and addresses
of the persons to whom the notice was sent. Id.
December 16, 2016, CAIR-Chicago filed its Proof of Service,
listing the 19 Plaintiff-Intervenors who had been served, via
U.S. Certified Mail, with the Court's Order of November
18, 2016. ECF No. 883. Upon the filing of this Proof of
Service, the Plaintiff-Intervenors were deemed to be
proceeding pro se. See ECF No. 882, Page ID 17437.
In the absence of substitute counsel entering a written
appearance, each Plaintiff-Intervenor was directed to file a
written notice with the Clerk of the Court of his/her current
address and telephone number within five business days of
being served with the Order. Id., Page ID 17437.
Thus, on or before December 1, 2016, each of the 19
Plaintiff-Intervenors was required to file a written notice
with the Clerk of his/her current address and telephone
December 22, 2016, JBS filed its Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff-Intervenors. As of the date of this Memorandum and
Order, none of the Plaintiff-Intervenors has filed the
written notice, nor has any party objected to JBS's
Motion to Dismiss.
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a defendant to move to
dismiss any claims asserted against it by a plaintiff who
“fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order . . . .” Similarly, NECivR 41.2 provides,
“[a]t any time, a case not being prosecuted with
reasonable diligence may be dismissed for lack of
prosecution.” Here, the failure of the 19
Plaintiff-Intervenors to comply with the Court's Amended
Order, ECF No. 882, is grounds for dismissal of their
remaining claims. See, e.g., Aziz v.
Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994) (“An
action may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) if a plaintiff
has failed to comply with any order of the court”);
Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed.Appx.
496 (8th Cir 2008) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's
Title VII action for failure to prosecute after finding that
plaintiff failed to comply with court orders in a timely
for failure to comply with a court order is appropriate
regardless of whether the plaintiff is represented by
counsel. See, e.g., Brantley v. BNSF Ry.
Co., No. 4:12CV3215, 2014 WL 840641, *3 (D. Neb. March
4, 2014) (dismissing pro se litigant's case for failing
to comply with court's discovery orders); Dahl v.
Kanawha Inv. Holding Co., 161 F.R.D. 673, 678 (N.D. Iowa
1995) (“Pro se litigants are not excused from complying
with court orders or substantive and procedural law”).
Where the Court orders a pro se plaintiff to file an update
regarding his “intention to continue prosecution of his
claims, ” failure to file such an update “or
failure to do so in a timely manner will be deemed failure to
prosecute . . . and may be deemed willful disobedience of a
court order, resulting in dismissal . . . pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).” Hancock v. Thalacker, 933
F.Supp. 1449, 1461 (N.D. Iowa 1996). Although a “pro se
litigant should receive meaningful notice of what is expected
of him, ” he is required to, at the very least, attempt
in good faith to comply with the Court's orders.
Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984)
(dismissing pro se plaintiff's case pursuant to Rule
41(b) after he failed to comply with the court's pretrial
orders to clarify his claims). Because the 19
Plaintiff-Intervenors have not complied with the Court's
Order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and NECivR 41.2, their
remaining claims will be dismissed, with prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED:
Motion to Dismiss Pro Se Intervenors for Failure to Comply
with Court Orders, ECF No. 884, filed by Defendant JBS USA,
LLC, is granted; and
claims asserted by Faydero (Saynab) Abdirahman; Sugule Ahmed;
Sahra Botan; Mohamed Isak (or Isak Mohamed); Omar Mohamed;
Hawa Mohamud; Asha (Maryan) Muse; Hodan Sirad (Sugra Olad);
Abdirahman A. Yusuf; Bashir Abdi; Ahmed Adam; Mohamed Adan;
Mohamed Dhadin (Yusuf Soldad); Hassan Gabow; Abdikhadar (or
Abdikhader) Hassan; Mohamed Isman; Musa ...