Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mehralian v. McManus

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 1, 2014

ALI MEHRALIAN, Plaintiff,
v.
H. JUDGE TIMOTHY J. McMANUS, 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CAROLYN M. RENN, Administrator, DAKOTA COUNTY SHERIFF AND INDIVIDUAL DEPUTIES, WILLIAM BERNARD, City Attorney, GRANNIS & HAUGE, P.A., Prosecutor for City of Eagan, DANNIA L. EDWARDS, Counsel 1st Judicial Public Defender Office, RACHEL M. DAVIES f/k/a MEHRALIAN, ROGER PIATE, JR., and FRANCISCO CAMPOS, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JANIE S. MAYERON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint, and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ("IFP"). (Docket Nos. 1 and 2.) The Court previously examined plaintiff's submissions, and determined that his complaint failed to state an actionable claim for relief. Therefore, in an Order dated January 13, 2014, (Docket No. 4), the Court informed plaintiff that his IFP Application would not be granted "at this time." That Order gave plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, and it expressly advised him that if he did not file a new pleading by February 3, 2014, the Court would recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

The deadline for filing an amended complaint has now expired, but plaintiff has not complied with the Court's prior order, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so. Indeed, plaintiff has not communicated with the Court at all since he commenced this action more than three months ago. Therefore, the Court will now recommend, in accordance with the prior order, that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel , 267 Fed.Appx. 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion) ("[a] district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order"); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing that a federal court has the inherent authority to "manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases").

Having determined that this action should be summarily dismissed, the Court will now recommend that plaintiff's pending IFP application be denied as moot.

Based upon the above, and upon all the records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Docket No. 2), be DENIED AS MOOT; and

2. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.