Alawadi et al v. U.S. Department of State et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE For Failure to Prosecute. Signed by District Judge Susan K. DeClercq. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SARAH KHALED ABDULGHANI
ALAWADI et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:23-cv-13200
Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On March 29, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint
as moot, stating that parties have resolved all the issues in the case. See ECF No. 7.
Plaintiffs did not timely respond—leaving their position unclear—so they were
directed to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs’ deadline was May 8, 2024, but they again did not respond.
After making certain findings under Civil Rule 41(b), “[t]his Court may
dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to prosecute.” United States v. Wallace,
592 F. Supp. 3d 612, 614 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S.
626, 630–32 (1962)); see also E.D. Mich. LR 41.2 (“[W]hen it appears . . . that the
parties have taken no action for a reasonable time, the court may, on its own motion
after reasonable notice or on application of a party, enter an order dismissing or

remanding the case unless good cause is shown.”). Four factors govern such a
dismissal. See Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted).
Here, the four factors weigh in favor of dismissing the case sua sponte. The
reason for Plaintiffs’ failure is not known, so the first factor is neutral. But
Defendants are prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ abandonment of his case, Plaintiffs were
warned about the potential consequences of their inaction, and a sanction short of
dismissal would not be appropriate in this matter because Plaintiffs have not
responded even once since his case was removed here. See United States v. Wallace,
592 F. Supp. 3d 612, 614 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (first citing Bullard v. Roadway Exp., 3
F. App’x 418, 421 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished); and then citing Morley
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:12-CV-14653, 2013 WL 2051326, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
May 14, 2013)). The three factors favoring dismissal outweigh the one neutral factor,
so the case will be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is
DISMISSED under Civil Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
This order closes the above-captioned case.
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: 5/10/2024

-2-