Background
Brenda Lee Stansbury, representing herself (known as a “pro se” litigant), filed a lawsuit in June 2024 alleging that Rolanda Helm-Woulard and Barry Security (actually Universal Protection Service, LLC, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services) illegally entered her apartment at Luther Tower II in Wilmington, Delaware, without notification. Stansbury claimed that on several occasions, items were removed from her apartment. The core of her claim was trespass.
After the court denied Universal’s initial motion to dismiss, discovery began. Universal served interrogatories and document requests on Stansbury in July 2025, followed by Helm-Woulard’s discovery requests in October. Stansbury never responded to any of the written discovery. She also failed to attend her scheduled deposition. When Universal filed a motion to compel, Stansbury did not respond. The court granted the motion and ordered Stansbury to respond within 20 days — she did not. Universal and Helm-Woulard each filed motions for summary judgment. Stansbury’s response did not provide any substantive opposition to the defendants’ arguments. The court then issued a Rule 41(e) notice — a formal warning that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute — giving Stansbury 15 days to respond. The notice was returned as undeliverable.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both defendants’ motions for summary judgment and also dismissed the case under Rule 41(e) for failure to prosecute. On summary judgment, the court applied the standard under Superior Court Civil Rule 56: the moving party must show there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the non-moving party must then come forward with evidence creating such an issue. Because Stansbury produced no evidence at all to support her trespass claim, the court found the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The court also independently dismissed the case under Rule 41(e), which allows dismissal when a party fails to diligently prosecute, fails to comply with court rules or orders, or for any other appropriate reason. Applying the six-factor test from the Delaware Supreme Court’s Drejka decision, the court found: (1) Stansbury bore full personal responsibility as a pro se litigant; (2) the defendants were prejudiced because the case had stalled for nearly two years without advancing past discovery; (3) there was a clear history of dilatoriness — missed deadlines, ignored discovery, skipped deposition; (4) while not acting in bad faith, Stansbury was willfully choosing not to participate; (5) no lesser sanction would be effective given the court’s and defendants’ numerous attempts to engage Stansbury; and (6) the claim lacked merit because there was no supporting evidence. While the court acknowledged sensitivity to Stansbury’s status as a self-represented litigant, it emphasized that pro se status does not excuse the duty to diligently prosecute.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se litigants are held to the same fundamental obligation to prosecute their cases as represented parties. Courts will accommodate self-represented individuals, but accommodation has limits — prolonged non-participation will result in dismissal.
- Failure to respond to discovery requests, attend depositions, and comply with court orders creates an independently sufficient basis for dismissal under Rule 41(e), even without a finding of bad faith.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the plaintiff produces no evidence to support a claim. Once the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine factual dispute, the non-moving party cannot survive summary judgment by simply filing a response without substantive argument or evidence.
Why It Matters
This case is a straightforward illustration of the consequences of abandoning active litigation. For defendants facing non-responsive pro se plaintiffs, it provides a clear roadmap: serve discovery, file a motion to compel, seek a Rule 41(e) notice, and ultimately move for summary judgment. The court’s application of the Drejka factors shows that Delaware courts will not let cases languish indefinitely simply because the plaintiff is self-represented. For self-represented litigants, the message is equally clear: filing a complaint is only the first step, and the duty to participate in discovery, respond to motions, and follow court orders is not optional.