DiDonna v. Smith
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-06107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DiDonna v. Smith, Judge Karas ordered DiDonna to explain his inaction by January 3, 2025, or face possible dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Louis Andrew DiDonna must explain by January 3, 2025, why his action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order does not decide the constitutional claims or impose a ruling on the defendants.
What happened
In DiDonna v. Smith, Louis Andrew DiDonna brought a constitutional-rights lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law and later amended his complaint. Because the complaint named unidentified defendants, the court directed him to file another amended complaint after receiving information identifying them.
DiDonna did not file the required second amended complaint by the court’s deadlines. After the court ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, he sent a letter about restrictions at Lackawanna County Prison but did not address that order. He also did not respond to the court’s later order requiring the amended complaint.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered DiDonna to show cause by January 3, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court stated that it may dismiss the case with prejudice without further notice if DiDonna does not show good cause; the opinion did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- DiDonna v. Smith · No. 7:22-cv-06107
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 5, 2024
Background
Louis Andrew DiDonna filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. After he filed an amended complaint, the court ordered service. Because the complaint named several John and Jane Doe defendants, the court instructed DiDonna to file a second amended complaint within 30 days after receiving information identifying those defendants.
The court interpreted a March 18, 2024 letter from DiDonna as a request for permission to amend and gave him until June 24, 2024, to file the second amended complaint. The court warned that failing to meet the deadline could lead to dismissal of claims against unserved defendants for failure to prosecute. No second amended complaint was filed.
Court’s Action
On July 19, 2024, the court ordered DiDonna to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute—that is, for not moving the case forward. DiDonna responded with a letter stating that he had been unable to write sooner because of strict quarantine at Lackawanna County Prison. He asked the court to change his address but did not address the order to show cause. The opinion dates this response July 31, 2021, although the surrounding procedural history refers to the court’s July 2024 order.
On October 4, 2024, the court again ordered DiDonna to file a second amended complaint naming the previously unidentified defendants by November 4, 2024. The court warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. DiDonna neither filed the complaint nor communicated with the court afterward.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered DiDonna to show cause by January 3, 2025, why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute, and stated that it may dismiss the action with prejudice without further notice if DiDonna does not show good cause. The order was a show-cause directive and did not itself dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.