Barry Lesane v. Hall's Security Analyst, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that district court did not adequately weigh Rule 41(b) factors and then “perform[ing] the analysis the district court did not expressly make”
• holding that \brief and technical\ warning of dismissal to pro se plaintiff was insufficient
• holding that “brief and technical” warning of dismissal to pro se plaintiff was insufficient
• holding that the “more egregious” failure to prosecute cases are those that “involve[] delays of many months, in spite of repeated warnings”
• holding that the fourth factor cuts against dismissal when the “plaintiffs failure to prosecute ... was silent and unobtrusive rather than vexatious and burdensome: plaintiff simply did not make submissions required by the court____”
• holding that the fourth factor cuts against dismissal when the “plaintiff's failure to prosecute . . . was silent and unobtrusive rather than vexatious and burdensome: plaintiff simply did not make submissions required by the court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).