EEOC

Filing 889

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Motion to Dismiss Pro Se Intervenors for Failure to Comply with Court Orders, ECF No. 884 , filed by Defendant JBS USA, LLC, is granted. All claims asserted by Faydero (Saynab) Abdirahman; Sugule Ahmed; Sahra Botan; Mo hamed 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), are dismissed, with prejudice. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION,

OPPORTUNITY
8:10CV318

Plaintiff,
ABDI MOHAMED, et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs/Intervenors,
FARHAN ABDI, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Intervenors,
vs.
JBS USA, LLC,
Defendant.

This 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.
BACKGROUND
On 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.
The 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.
On 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 number.
On 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.
DISCUSSION
2

Federal 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 manner).
Dismissal 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
3

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.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The 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

2.

All 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 Abdalla Mohamed; Ayan Osman; and Shire
Abdirashid Ahmed (Ali Shire), are dismissed, with prejudice.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

4