Arroyave-Ramirez v. FCI Otisville
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Arroyave-Ramirez v. FCI Otisville, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice after Arroyave-Ramirez failed to provide a new address.
The dismissal affects Petitioner Andres Fernando Arroyave-Ramirez’s action against FCI Otisville (Warden). The court’s ruling also affects his ability to appeal without a certificate of appealability or without paying the appeal filing fees.
What happened
In Arroyave-Ramirez v. FCI Otisville, the court had ordered Andres Fernando Arroyave-Ramirez to update the court in writing about his new address or explain why the action should not be dismissed.
Arroyave-Ramirez did not provide the required address information within the time allowed. The opinion does not discuss the underlying claims in his petition.
Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b), meaning the dismissal itself did not bar refiling. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Arroyave-Ramirez v. FCI Otisville · No. 1:24-cv-06985
- Laura Swain
- May 12, 2025
Background
The court had entered a March 7, 2025 order, entered on March 10, directing Petitioner to show cause within 30 days why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s March 18, 2024 Standing Order. The order required Petitioner to update the court in writing about his new address.
Ruling
The court stated that Petitioner did not inform the court of his new address. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion does not reach the merits of the petition.
The court also stated that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it declined to issue a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is a document required for certain appeals from habeas proceedings. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Finally, it directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.