Mfalme El Bey v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

S.D. Illinois

Mfalme El Bey v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

DecidedNovember 18, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-01212

StatusUnknown

This text of Mfalme El Bey v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Mfalme El Bey v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mfalme El Bey v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, (S.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MFALME EL BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-cv-1212-JPG

SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Mfalme El Bey’s motion to vacate (Doc. 11) the Court’s September 2, 2025, order and judgment (Docs. 8 & 9) dismissing this case without prejudice for lack of prosecution. In his motion, El Bey explains that, through no fault of his own, postal service errors prevented him from receiving and responding to the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) and the Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 6). The defendant has not responded to the motion to vacate the dismissal and reinstate this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows the Court to vacate a judgment because of excusable neglect. Whether something amounts to excusable neglect is an equitable inquiry that should take into account all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s prior omissions. United States v. Brown, 133 F.3d 993, 996 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Pioneer Invest. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The Court will consider such factors as the reason for the default, whether it was within the movant’s control, the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant, and the interests of efficient judicial administration. Brown, 133 F.3d at 996. Since the plaintiff acted in good faith and was not responsible for his failure to receive mail, it would be unfair to saddle him with the consequences of his failure to respond. Further, it would not unduly prejudice the defendant to reopen this case for a decision on the merits and to allow the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds excusable neglect justifies vacating the decision in this case. The Court therefore:

• GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 11); • VACATES the order and judgment in this case (Docs. 8 & 9); • REOPENS this case; • REINSTATES the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5); and • ORDERS that the plaintiff shall have 30 days from entry of this order to respond to that motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 18, 2025

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MFALME EL BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-cv-1212-JPG

SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Mfalme El Bey’s motion to vacate (Doc. 11) the Court’s September 2, 2025, order and judgment (Docs. 8 & 9) dismissing this case without prejudice for lack of prosecution. In his motion, El Bey explains that, through no fault of his own, postal service errors prevented him from receiving and responding to the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) and the Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 6). The defendant has not responded to the motion to vacate the dismissal and reinstate this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows the Court to vacate a judgment because of excusable neglect. Whether something amounts to excusable neglect is an equitable inquiry that should take into account all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s prior omissions. United States v. Brown, 133 F.3d 993, 996 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Pioneer Invest. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The Court will consider such factors as the reason for the default, whether it was within the movant’s control, the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant, and the interests of efficient judicial administration. Brown, 133 F.3d at 996. Since the plaintiff acted in good faith and was not responsible for his failure to receive mail, it would be unfair to saddle him with the consequences of his failure to respond. Further, it would not unduly prejudice the defendant to reopen this case for a decision on the merits and to allow the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds excusable neglect justifies vacating the decision in this case. The Court therefore:

• GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 11); • VACATES the order and judgment in this case (Docs. 8 & 9); • REOPENS this case; • REINSTATES the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5); and • ORDERS that the plaintiff shall have 30 days from entry of this order to respond to that motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 18, 2025

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mfalme El Bey v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mfalme-el-bey-v-secretary-of-housing-and-urban-development-ilsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack