Zeigler v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-00707
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Zeigler v. Annucci, Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice because Zeigler did not prosecute it or follow court orders.
Terrell Zeigler’s case was dismissed without prejudice, ending the action at the district-court level for failure to prosecute. The defendants were affected because the case was closed, but the court did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
What happened
In Zeigler v. Annucci, Terrell Zeigler sued Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Leroy Fields, Stephen Urbanski, Akinola Akinyombo, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Zeigler represented himself. The court had previously dismissed his claims against the Department and later dismissed his claims against Annucci and Urbanski without prejudice, while giving him deadlines to file an amended complaint and serve Akinyombo.
Zeigler did not file an amended complaint, serve Akinyombo, update his address, respond to the court’s order to explain his lack of activity, or otherwise communicate with the court for more than a year. Several court orders were returned as undeliverable. The court considered the length of the delay, notice, possible harm to the defendants, fairness and court management, and whether a lesser penalty would work.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and mail the dismissal order to Zeigler’s address.
The detailed version
- Zeigler v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 7:23-cv-00707
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
Terrell Zeigler, representing himself, filed this action on January 24, 2023, against Akinola Akinyombo, Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Leroy Fields, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and Stephen Urbanski.
On March 3, 2023, the court dismissed Zeigler’s claims against the Department and directed the United States Marshals Service to serve the remaining defendants. On September 20, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Zeigler’s claims against Annucci and Urbanski without prejudice and gave Zeigler until October 20, 2024, to file an amended complaint and serve Akinyombo. Zeigler did not comply. The court issued another order requiring those actions by November 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court twice tried to mail the November 6, 2024 order to Zeigler, but the mail was returned as undeliverable. On February 3, 2025, the court issued an order requiring Zeigler to explain by March 3, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. That order was also returned as undeliverable. Zeigler had been told that he had to notify the court in writing if his address changed and that failing to do so could result in dismissal. The opinion states that he had not filed an amended complaint, reported an address change, responded to the order to explain himself, or otherwise communicated with the court since February 8, 2024.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with court rules or orders. The court also stated that a federal district court has inherent authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute without waiting for a defendant to file a motion.
The court weighed five factors:
- Length of the delay: Zeigler had failed to communicate with the court for more than a year.
- Notice: The court assumed Zeigler received the September 20, 2024 order because it had no indication that the order was undeliverable. The court also noted that Zeigler had been warned about keeping his address current. Although he may not have received a specific warning that further delay would lead to dismissal, the court concluded that his failure to provide a current address made further warning impossible.
- Possible harm to the defendants: The case was at an early stage, which reduced the likely harm from delay. But the court stated that harm could be presumed from the substantial length of Zeigler’s delay.
- Fairness and court management: The court concluded that dismissal, specifically dismissal without prejudice, balanced the court’s management responsibilities with Zeigler’s interest in being heard.
- Less severe penalties: The court considered lesser penalties but found they were unlikely to be effective because Zeigler had not provided a current address where court communications could reach him.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This was a procedural dismissal based on Zeigler’s failure to communicate with the court and comply with its orders; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Zeigler’s address.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.