Minhui Liang v. Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: May 12, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01059
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

MINHUI LIANG,

Plaintiff, :

Case No. 2:25-cv-1059 v. Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge S. Courter M. SECRETARY, UNITED STATES Shimeall DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURTIY, et al., :

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER In September 2025, Minhui Liang, proceeding without counsel, sued the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Attorney General (together, “Defendants”), asking the Court to order U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her application (Form I-485) to register for permanent residence or adjust status. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) After USCIS denied Plaintiff’s application in February 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss on mootness grounds. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion within the time limits prescribed by the local rules. On April 14, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days to respond. (ECF No. 11.) The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that her failure to do so could result in, inter alia, the dismissal of her case for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’ Motion or otherwise responded to the Court’s Order. “District courts are empowered to dismiss actions when a litigant fails to comply with a court order, or fails to prosecute a case.” Fuller v. Gerth, 468 F. App’x 587, 588 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Dismissal is generally

warranted where a party fails to act in the face of a clear prior warning that the case would be dismissed. See Bowles v. City of Cleveland, 129 F. App’x 239, 244 (6th Cir. 2005). “When a plaintiff does not respond to motions to dismiss, the usual result is not granting the unopposed motions but instead dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.” Simpson v. Johnson, No. 3:23-CV-623-BJB, 2024 WL 3512141, at *2 (W.D. Ky. July 23, 2024) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., Liang v. Secretary DHS Jeh Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-1212 (S.D. Ohio) (Watson, J.).

Accordingly, considering Plaintiff’s failure to respond and the Court’s warning as to the same, the Court DISMISSES this case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT