Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 31, 2025

Donkor v. United States Postal Service

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:24-cv-00559
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Donkor v. United States Postal Service, Judge Rearden dismissed the case because Plaintiff did not prosecute it or oppose dismissal.

Who this affects

PAA-WILLIE DONKOR, the United States Postal Service, and the United States of America.

What happened

In Donkor v. United States Postal Service, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint. PAA-WILLIE DONKOR did not file a response to that request.

The court ordered PAA-WILLIE DONKOR to explain why the request should not be treated as unopposed and extended the deadline after no response was filed. PAA-WILLIE DONKOR still did not respond.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, also relying substantially on the reasons in the defendants’ legal memorandum. The court declined to allow an amendment because it found the problem with the claim was substantive and could not be fixed by better pleading.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Donkor v. United States Postal Service · No. 1:24-cv-00559
Judge
Rearden
Date
Mar. 31, 2025

Background

The defendants, the United States Postal Service and the United States of America, moved to dismiss PAA-WILLIE DONKOR’s complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PAA-WILLIE DONKOR did not oppose the motion.

On February 3, 2025, the court ordered PAA-WILLIE DONKOR to show cause—meaning explain why the defendants’ motion should not be treated as unopposed—by February 20, 2025. After no response, the court extended the deadline to March 28, 2025 and warned that failing to respond could result in the motion being granted as unopposed or the case being dismissed for abandonment or failure to prosecute under Rule 41. PAA-WILLIE DONKOR did not file an opposition.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41. The court also dismissed the case substantially for the reasons stated in the defendants’ memorandum of law.

The court separately considered whether to allow PAA-WILLIE DONKOR to amend the complaint. Although courts generally should give a self-represented plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend when the complaint might state a valid claim, the court declined to grant leave to amend on its own initiative. It concluded that the problem with the claim was substantive and that better pleading would not cure it.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and mail a copy of the order to PAA-WILLIE DONKOR.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.