District Judge Mae Avila D’Agostino

 

Read Full- Text Decision

On Jan. 4, 2016, plaintiff Finch, acting pro se, sued defendants New York State Police troopers Moore and Calleja under 42 USC §1983. Plaintiff took no further action after filing his pro se complaint. Plaintiff did not receive documents mailed to him at his listed address at the Clinton Correctional Facility, nor did he notify the court of any change of address following his Feb. 25, 2016 release from the custody of the New York State Dep’t of Corr. and Cmty. Supervision (DOCCS). The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Noting plaintiff’s failure to notify it of his change in address and that plaintiff has not responded or participated in any litigation-related activity since filing his complaint over a year ago, the court—discussing U.S. ex rel Roundtree v. Health & Hosps. Police Dep’t of N.Y., and Torres v. Goord—observed that other courts have dismissed cases for failure to prosecute in situations similar to that presented in plaintiff’s case. The court found defendants prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to respond to court directives. They have not been able to engage in any kind of discovery, or even attend an initial conference.

District Judge Mae Avila D’Agostino

 

Read Full- Text Decision

On Jan. 4, 2016, plaintiff Finch, acting pro se, sued defendants New York State Police troopers Moore and Calleja under 42 USC §1983. Plaintiff took no further action after filing his pro se complaint. Plaintiff did not receive documents mailed to him at his listed address at the Clinton Correctional Facility, nor did he notify the court of any change of address following his Feb. 25, 2016 release from the custody of the New York State Dep’t of Corr. and Cmty. Supervision (DOCCS). The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Noting plaintiff’s failure to notify it of his change in address and that plaintiff has not responded or participated in any litigation-related activity since filing his complaint over a year ago, the court—discussing U.S. ex rel Roundtree v. Health & Hosps. Police Dep’t of N.Y., and Torres v. Goord—observed that other courts have dismissed cases for failure to prosecute in situations similar to that presented in plaintiff’s case. The court found defendants prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to respond to court directives. They have not been able to engage in any kind of discovery, or even attend an initial conference.