UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TYESHA ISOM CIVIL ACTON VERSUS NO. 23-5-SDD-EWD SATOKO KISHIMOTO, ET AL.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Tyesha Isom (“Isom”), who is representing herself, has failed to prosecute her case and to follow Court orders. Therefore, this case will be dismissed without prejudice on the Court’s own motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Isom originally filed suit against Defendants Satoko Kishimoto, the Mayor of Suginami City of Tokyo; Kyle Ardoin, then Secretary of State of Louisiana; Rayne Dak Prescott (“Prescott”), the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys; Cedric O and Nathalie Elimas, members of the French foreign ministry; Yasukazu Hamada, the Minister of Defense of Japan; Bob Menendez, then Chairperson of the U.S. Senate Committee on

Foreign Relations; and several other foreign dignitaries.1 From the summary of her claims, it appears that Isom believes she and Prescott are involved in some type of international conspiracy. With her Complaint, Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form) (the “IFP Application”).2 Isom’s IFP Application was denied without prejudice and she was ordered to file the long form

1 R. Doc. 1. Documents in the Court record are referred to as “R. Doc. ___.” 2 R. Doc. 2. application to provide additional information in support of her request. Isom was advised that the failure to respond could result in dismissal of her claims without further notice.3 Because Isom did not timely respond to the Court’s Order to submit a long form IFP application, a show cause hearing was set on May 3, 2023. Instead of appearing for the hearing, Isom was permitted to pay the required court filing fee or submit the required

form before the hearing.4 Because it did not appear that Isom received the notice setting the May 3, 2023 show cause hearing, another hearing was set for May 31, 2023. Again, Isom was ordered to appear for the hearing, or to pay the required fee or submit the form before the hearing. Isom was, again, told that the failure to appear as ordered could result in dismissal of her claims without further notice.5 The May 31, 2023 hearing was held open for 15 minutes, but Isom did not appear or contact the court to say that she could not appear.6 Isome has not taken any action in this case since she filed the Complaint and original IFP Application on January 3, 2023. The history of this case shows that Isom has failed to take appropriate action to

prosecute her claims. Isom has failed to respond to Court orders, even though she was told that her case could be dismissed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides for dismissal of a suit under these facts: (b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b)…operates as an adjudication on the merits.

3 R. Doc. 3. 4 R. Doc. 6. 5 R. Doc. 7. 6 R. Doc. 8. A district court may dismiss a case on its own motion under Rule 41(b) with or without notice to the parties.7 Because Isom has ignored Court orders even though she was told that her claims might be dismissed without further notice, IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned lawsuit be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the failure of Plaintiff Tyesha Isom to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this matter on the Court’s docket.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order and Judgment of Dismissal to Plaintiff Tyesha Isom, by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested to the address listed on PACER. Baton Rouge, Louisiana on the _10_t_h day of ___S_e_p_te_m_b_e_r_, 2025.

S ____________________________ SHELLY D. DICK CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

7 Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co. Ltd.,

(5th Cir. 1985) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss a claim for failure of prosecution. Although the rule speaks of dismissal pursuant to a motion by the defendant a district court may dismiss on its own motion, with or without notice to the parties. This authority flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.”) (citing Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

,

,

(1962)).