Reed v. The City of New York

Background

Calvin Reed, who was representing himself, filed this action on October 5, 2020. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Moses for general pretrial supervision in September 2021 and was reassigned to Judge Margaret M. Garnett on April 2, 2024.

The opinion states that, over more than a year, Reed repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, meet deadlines, and attend scheduled conferences. The court had previously extended deadlines and adjourned conferences, including to accommodate Reed’s prior incarceration and his reports that he had not received some court filings.

Reed did not appear at a January 16, 2024 status conference and did not answer defendants’ interrogatories by the required deadline. He later failed to attend status conferences on March 14, April 18, and June 10, 2024. He also failed to appear at a February 11, 2025 post-discovery conference. The court said the conference had been scheduled more than a month earlier, that the scheduling order had been mailed to Reed’s address of record, and that the court tried several times to reach him by telephone.

At the February 11 conference, the court ordered Reed to explain in writing by March 11 why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order warned that the case would be dismissed without further notice if no submission was received. The court stated that it had received no submission from Reed and had no further contact with him.

Legal standard and analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or fails to follow court orders. The court also described its inherent authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute. It applied five factors: the length of the noncompliance, whether the plaintiff was warned about dismissal, likely prejudice to defendants from further delay, the balance between court docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be adequate.

The court found that all five factors favored dismissal. It emphasized that the case had been pending for four and a half years, Reed had failed to comply with court orders for more than a year, and he had repeatedly been warned that continued noncompliance could result in dismissal. The court also stated that Reed had not contacted it for roughly nine months and that defendants’ counsel had not heard from him since September 2024.

The court rejected the significance of Reed’s prior statements that he had not received certain filings, explaining that self-represented parties must keep the court informed of current contact information and provide an address for service. The court concluded that it could not wait indefinitely for Reed to participate and that no sanction other than dismissal was adequate.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all dates and deadlines and close the case. The opinion does not reach or decide the merits of Reed’s underlying claims.