Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services
- John Docherty
- 0:25-cv-03740
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Mohamed A. Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice — meaning it could potentially be refiled — because plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali failed to pay the court filing fee or submit a corrected fee-waiver application by the court's deadline.
Plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali, who filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services and whose case may be dismissed for failing to pay the filing fee or submit a corrected fee-waiver application.
What happened
In Mohamed A. Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services (Case No. 25-CV-3740), plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali sued the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services in federal court. When he filed the lawsuit, he also asked the court to let him proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that request on September 25, 2025, because his application was missing required financial information, and it gave him until October 16, 2025, to either submit a corrected application or pay the full filing fee.
Mr. Ali did not meet that deadline. According to the court, the case file shows no communication from him at all since he first filed his lawsuit. Because he took no action, the court is now recommending that the case be thrown out for failure to prosecute — meaning he did not move his own case forward as required.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued this recommendation on October 24, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to follow court orders or move the case forward. The recommended dismissal is without prejudice, which generally means Mr. Ali would not be permanently barred from refiling. However, this is only a recommendation from the magistrate judge, not a final order. Mr. Ali has 14 days from receiving this recommendation to file written objections with the District Court.
The detailed version
This is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in Mohamed A. Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services, Case No. 25-CV-3740.
Background
Plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali filed this civil action against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services. Along with his complaint, he submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to waive the court's filing fee based on financial inability to pay. On September 25, 2025, the court denied that application (Dkt. No. 2) because it lacked necessary financial information. The court's order (Dkt. No. 3) gave Mr. Ali two options: (1) file a corrected IFP application with the missing information, or (2) pay the full filing fee. The deadline to do either was October 16, 2025. The court explicitly warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Failure to Comply
The October 16, 2025, deadline passed without any action by Mr. Ali. The docket reflects no filings or communications from him since he initiated the case.
Legal Basis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or fails to comply with court orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The magistrate judge cited Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008), confirming this discretionary authority.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling, in contrast to a dismissal with prejudice.
Procedural Posture
Because this is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge — not a final order from the district judge — it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections to this recommendation within 14 days of being served with a copy. The opposing party then has 14 days to respond to any objections. The matter will then go to the district judge for a final ruling.
Note on Underlying Claims
The opinion does not describe the substance of Mr. Ali's claims against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services, as the dismissal recommendation is based entirely on procedural grounds.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.