Recant v. Day
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-04117
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Recant v. Day, Judge Tarnofsky gave Robin Recant until July 31, 2025, to prosecute her case or face a recommended dismissal.
Robin Recant and the 72 defendants named in her complaint; no defendant had been served as of the order.
What happened
In Recant v. Day, Robin Recant, who is representing herself, filed a lawsuit naming 72 defendants and asserting constitutional claims. More than a year after filing, she had not requested summonses or served any defendant.
The court had previously considered recommending dismissal because the case was not being prosecuted. Recant said financial problems prevented her from paying for process servers and asked for help from the United States Marshals Service, which is available to people approved to proceed without paying court fees. Her renewed application for that status was incomplete and contained inconsistent income information, and she did not provide the requested explanations and proof.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered Recant to take steps by July 31, 2025, to move the case forward. She could submit the materials supporting her fee-waiver application, serve the defendants, or request a reasonable extension. The order did not dismiss the case; it stated that the judge expected to recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute if Recant did not act.
The detailed version
- Recant v. Day · No. 1:24-cv-04117
- Tarnofsky
- July 11, 2025
Background
Robin Recant filed a pro se complaint—that is, a complaint filed without a lawyer—on May 24, 2024. The complaint asserted numerous claims, including alleged violations of federal constitutional rights, and named 72 defendants. By July 11, 2025, no defendant had been served, and Recant had not requested that summonses be issued.
On December 26, 2024, Judge Tarnofsky issued a report and recommendation proposing that Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismiss the case without prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b) for failure to prosecute. After Recant submitted letters, Judge Tarnofsky held an in-person conference on March 27, 2025, and withdrew that report and recommendation. Recant explained that financial constraints prevented her from hiring process servers and said she wanted assistance from the United States Marshals Service. The opinion states that this assistance is available only to plaintiffs permitted to proceed without paying court fees.
Recant’s initial application to proceed without paying the filing fee had been denied, and she had paid the filing fee. She renewed her application on April 14, 2025, but did not explain gifts or inheritances reported on the application. The court required additional information. Recant filed an amended application on May 9, 2025, but reported inconsistent amounts for some income sources. The court then required her to explain the discrepancies and provide proof of income and expenses by June 30, 2025. She did not make that filing.
Order
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, including on the court’s own initiative. The court also stated that the plaintiff has the ultimate responsibility for moving a case toward trial.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it stated that if Recant did not take steps by July 31, 2025, it expected to recommend that Judge Rearden dismiss the case under Rule 41(b). The specified options were: filing the materials needed to support the fee-waiver application; serving the defendants; or requesting a reasonable extension of time to complete service.
Effect
The order imposed a July 31, 2025 deadline and warned of a possible future recommendation of dismissal. It did not decide the merits of Recant’s constitutional claims, rule on the renewed fee-waiver application, or enter a dismissal. The classification is procedural because the order concerns prosecution, service, and fee-waiver requirements rather than the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.