Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Lela Frazier on behalf of P.T.R.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-2622 (ECT/SGE)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lela Frazier filed this action on June 23, 2025. (Dkt. 1.) As its answer to
the Petition, Defendant filed the administrative record on August 22, 2025. (Dkt. 6.) Under
the applicable rules, the Plaintiff’s brief in support of the requested relief was due 30 days
later, on September 22, 2025. See Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Rule 6. Due to the Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court sua sponte entered
an order on September 24, 2025, granting an extension to October 22, 2025, for the Plaintiff
to file her brief. (Dkt. 9.)
On October 1, 2025, funding for the Department of Justice expired and
appropriations to the Department lapsed. That same day, the United States Attorney sought
a stay of all Social Security Administration cases until Congress restored appropriations.
(See Dkt. 10 at ¶ 3.) Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief District Judge of the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota entered an administrative order regarding all
social security cases that granted the requested stay “for a period equivalent to the duration
of the lapse in appropriations. (Id. ¶ 6.)
CASE 0:25-cv-02622-ECT-SGE Doc. 12 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 4

2
The lapse in funding lasted 43 days. On November 21, 2025, after funding had been
restored, Chief Judge Schiltz entered an order lifting the stay. (Dkt. 11.) Pursuant to that
Order, “[a]ll deadlines, response dates, due dates or cut-off dates” were “extended for a
period of 43 days, commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations.” (Id.)
Thus, Plaintiff’s deadline to file a brief in support of the requested relief was extended to
December 4, 2025. This deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has still failed to file a brief in
support of the requested relief.
A dismissal for want of prosecution is part of a court’s “inherent power to control
its docket.” Lunsford v. RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1158 (D. Minn.
2008) (citing M.S. v. Wermers, 557 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1977)); Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s
action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. The
power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the
disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District
Courts.”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and should be used
only in cases of willful disobedience of a court order or continued or persistent failure to
prosecute a complaint.” Givens v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 751 F.2d 261, 263 (8th Cir. 1984);
Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 405 (8th Cir. 2008). The Eighth Circuit has
stressed the importance of the sanction’s proportionality to the conduct at issue. Smith, 526
F.3d at 405. “A district court should weigh its need to advance its burdened docket against
the consequence of irrevocably extinguishing the litigant’s claim and consider whether a
CASE 0:25-cv-02622-ECT-SGE Doc. 12 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 4

3
less severe sanction could remedy the effect of the litigant’s transgressions on the court
and the resulting prejudice to the opposing party.” Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 203 F.3d
524, 527 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256,
1260 (8th Cir. 1997)).
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the claim for benefits. As its answer,
Defendant filed the administrative record in August, and Plaintiff failed to file any
response. In consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, this Court extended the briefing
deadline another month. That deadline was then extended another 43 days as a result of the
lapse in appropriations, and Plaintiff again failed to file a brief in support of her claims.
For these reasons, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed for failure to
prosecute.
Now, the Court must determine how dismissal of those claims is put into effect.
Hunt, 203 F.3d at 527. The Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
Dismissal without prejudice appropriately balances this Court’s need for efficient and
effective docket control with Plaintiffs’ access to justice. Id.; see Nat’l Hockey League v.
Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976) (noting purpose of imposing sanctions
is to deter future offensive conduct by the responsible individual and others). Plaintiff is
warned that given the Court’s recommendation in this matter, dismissals of future cases
filed by Plaintiff may well justify dismissal with prejudice.
CASE 0:25-cv-02622-ECT-SGE Doc. 12 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 4

4
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Frank
Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
and this matter be closed.
Date: December 29, 2025 	s/ Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filings Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All
objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-02622-ECT-SGE Doc. 12 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 4