Henry v. City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-02380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Henry v. City of New York was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Judge Vyskocil found Henry did not update his address.
Michael Henry’s action was dismissed without prejudice, allowing him to file a new civil action; the named defendants are Lisa Simmons, Hasan Williams, Rommel Parris, and Vinayak Shastri.
What happened
In Henry v. City of New York, Michael Henry represented himself. Court mail was returned after he was released from Woodbourne Correctional Facility, and he did not provide an updated address.
The court twice ordered Henry to explain why the case should not be dismissed and warned that he needed to update his address. He did not respond to either order or update his address.
Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk to close it. The court also denied Henry permission to appeal without paying fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Henry v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-02380
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 15, 2025
Background
Michael Henry, who was representing himself, filed the action on March 25, 2025. The court had a standing order requiring self-represented litigants to report changes to their mailing address or electronic contact information. A court order mailed to Henry at Woodbourne Correctional Facility was returned as undeliverable. The defendants then informed the court that Henry had been released from that facility on March 20, 2025.
Henry did not provide an updated address. The court issued two orders requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed and to update his address. The first order set a June 12, 2025 deadline, and the second set a July 30, 2025 deadline. Both orders warned that the case could be dismissed if Henry did not comply. Henry did not respond to either order or update his address.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or fails to comply with a court order. The court explained that dismissal is a severe sanction, particularly for a self-represented plaintiff, and considered the required factors: the length of the failure to comply, notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s interest in managing its docket, Henry’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be appropriate.
The court concluded that dismissal was warranted because Henry had failed to update his address for nearly five months and had received several warnings. The court stated that the case could not proceed without current contact information. Because Henry was representing himself, the court determined that dismissal without prejudice was more appropriate than dismissal with prejudice.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Henry’s last known address and made available to him if he appeared at the court’s pro se intake window. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.