Almosawi v. United States
3:18-cv-00481
M.D. Tenn.Sep 16, 2019Background:
- Plaintiff Hayder Almosawi, who claims to be sole proprietor of Alnahrain Market & Restaurant in Nashville, sued the United States seeking de novo review of a final agency decision permanently disqualifying his store from SNAP benefits (7 U.S.C. §2023(a)(13)).
- Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (untimeliness) and failure to state a claim; the court denied that motion without prejudice (treating it as one for summary judgment) on August 5, 2019.
- Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw on April 18, 2019 due to inability to contact Plaintiff; the motion was granted August 8, 2019 and Plaintiff was ordered to retain counsel or proceed pro se and to demonstrate he is a sole proprietor by September 6, 2019.
- The Clerk’s mailings of the August 8 order to the business address on the complaint were returned as undeliverable; the court has no current mailing address for Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s directives or otherwise communicate; the court found the case could not proceed with an absent plaintiff.
- The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Timeliness of de novo review | Seeks de novo judicial review of SNAP disqualification under statutory provision | Complaint untimely; lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim | Motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice (treated as summary-judgment-type); substantive jurisdiction not resolved here |
| Failure to prosecute / failure to comply with court orders | No substantive response or compliance after counsel withdrew; failed to provide contact/address or show sole-proprietorship status | Case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders | Recommend dismissal without prejudice under Rules 16(f) and 41(b) due to returned mail and plaintiff’s noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1961) (federal courts have inherent power to manage their dockets)
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976) (imposition of sanctions is within court discretion)
- Bishop v. Cross, 790 F.2d 38 (6th Cir.) (Rule 41(b) dismissal for lack of prosecution)
- Carter v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 636 F.2d 159 (6th Cir.) (standards for dismissal under Rule 41(b))
- Regional Refuse Sys. v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150 (6th Cir.) (discretion in sanctions analysis)
- Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir.) (pro se litigants remain bound by basic procedural obligations)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation can waive appellate review)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.) (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report may waive appellate rights)