James v. Medlar
7:15-cv-04333
S.D.N.Y.Apr 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Auria R. James sued the City of Yonkers and seven unnamed Yonkers SWAT officers on May 29, 2015.
- The Court previously ordered the City to identify the seven John Doe officers and provide service addresses; that order was not served on the parties due to a clerical error but was later sent.
- On May 16, 2016, the City identified six officers (Sgt. Robert Zingaro, P.O. Ray Dugan, P.O. Shaun Hartley, P.O. Richard Gogola, P.O. David Medlar, P.O. Richard Sullivan) and gave a service address at Yonkers Police Department Records Division.
- Nearly a year passed after the City provided the information and James did not file an amended complaint naming the officers or otherwise advance the case.
- Plaintiff has not updated her address; the Court mailed information to her last known Bronx address and warned that failure to keep the Court informed can support dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- The Court (sua sponte) ordered James to file an amended complaint by May 25, 2017, and warned the case may be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or for failing to update her address.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's inaction warrants dismissal for failure to prosecute | James did not present any argument or activity to justify delay | City provided identities and service addresses; case progression depends on plaintiff | Court ordered amended complaint by a deadline and warned of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) if plaintiff fails to act |
| Whether failure to update address supports dismissal | Plaintiff failed to notify Court of any address change | City relied on last known address to provide required information | Court warned failure to update address may result in dismissal |
| Whether sua sponte dismissal is appropriate without notice | N/A (no action from plaintiff) | Defendants rely on Court’s inherent authority and Rule 41(b) to manage docket | Court invoked authority to set deadline and warned of dismissal; declined immediate dismissal but set final opportunity |
| Whether extenuating circumstances could prevent dismissal | Plaintiff could submit explanation to avoid dismissal | City did not dispute possibility of excusing delay if justified | Court permitted plaintiff to provide written explanation before deadline to avoid dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Taub v. Hale, 355 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1966) (district court may sua sponte dismiss for want of prosecution)
- West v. City of New York, 130 F.R.D. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (recognizing inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Nita v. Connecticut Dep't of Envtl. Prof., 16 F.3d 482 (2d Cir. 1994) (factors relevant to dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- LeSane v. Hall's Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussing district court authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)