Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security
Zakariya Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security; Immigration and Custom Enforcement, St. Paul Field Office; Immigration Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit, (HQPDU) Washington DC; District Directors and Directors of Detention and Removal Field Offices; and J. Reller, Deportation Officer, St. Paul MN Field Office
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-02649
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Provinzino dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff never paid the required $405.00 filing fee.
People who file federal lawsuits and fail to pay required court filing fees or otherwise take no action to move their case forward may have their cases dismissed for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security, Zakariya Abdikarim filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's St. Paul Field Office, the Immigration Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit, various detention and removal field office directors, and a deportation officer named J. Reller. The case never moved forward because Abdikarim did not pay the $405.00 court filing fee that a magistrate judge had ordered him to pay in May 2026.
A magistrate judge — Judge Elsa M. Bullard — reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning Abdikarim took no steps to move his case forward. Abdikarim did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time, which meant the presiding district court judge reviewed it only for obvious mistakes.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino found no clear error in the recommendation and adopted it. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Abdikarim is not automatically barred from refiling, though no statement about refiling conditions appears in the order.
The detailed version
- Abdikarim v. Department of Homeland Security · No. 0:26-cv-02649
- Laura M. Provinzino
- June 25, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Zakariya Abdikarim filed a complaint against the Department of Homeland Security; Immigration and Customs Enforcement's St. Paul Field Office; the Immigration Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit (HQPDU) in Washington, D.C.; District Directors and Directors of Detention and Removal Field Offices; and J. Reller, identified as a Deportation Officer at the St. Paul, Minnesota Field Office. The substance of Abdikarim's underlying claims is not described in this order.
Procedural History
On May 20, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued an order (ECF No. 3) directing Abdikarim to pay a $405.00 filing fee. Abdikarim did not pay the fee. Magistrate Judge Bullard then issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, ECF No. 4) recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal when a plaintiff fails to take required steps to move a case forward.
Abdikarim filed no objections to the R&R within the permitted time period. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent, when no objections are filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge's R&R only for clear error.
Ruling
Judge Provinzino found no clear error in the R&R, citing specifically the absence of any evidence that Abdikarim paid the $405.00 filing fee as directed. The court adopted the R&R in full and dismissed Abdikarim's complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Key Points
- The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the order itself does not bar Abdikarim from refiling; however, the order states no conditions or guidance on refiling. - The court did not reach the merits of any underlying immigration-related claim. - The sole stated basis for dismissal is non-payment of the filing fee, treated as a failure to prosecute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.