In Re: Archibald, 7:23-cv-10462

Emanuel Archibald (Appellant), acting pro se, filed a Notice of Appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order on November 30, 2023.
Despite the appeal, Archibald took no further action, including failing to file required documents and briefs by their deadlines and failing to respond to court orders.
On April 2, 2024, the District Court ordered Archibald to show cause by May 2, 2024, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Archibald did not respond, communicate further, or provide any explanation for his inactivity or neglect.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Appellee) was not shown to have been prejudiced by specific delay, but courts presume prejudice from such delays.
The court concluded dismissal was warranted under both Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Issue	Archibald's Argument	Nationstar's Argument	Held
Dismissal for failure to prosecute	No further argument offered	Presumed prejudice, delay	Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute
Compliance with court orders and filings	No explanation or excuse	Procedural rules not met	Dismissed for failure to comply
Applicability of Rule 41(b) to pro se	Pro se status (implied)	Rule applies to all	Rule 41(b) applies; no exemption
Efficacy of lesser sanctions	Not addressed	Dismissal necessary	Lesser sanctions insufficient

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (Recognizing district court's authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute sua sponte)
LeSane v. Hall's Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206 (Discusses standard for dismissals under Rule 41(b) and leniency for pro se litigants)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (Defines factors for excusable neglect in missed bankruptcy filing deadlines)
U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375 F.3d 248 (Rule 41(b) dismissal is discretionary and is a harsh remedy to be used only in extreme situations)