Labossiere v. Downstate Correctional Facility
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-10538
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wilfred Labossiere v. N. Baxter, Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice because Labossiere stopped pursuing it.
Wilfred Labossiere’s case was dismissed without prejudice after he failed to file the required amended complaint or continue communicating with the court; N. Baxter was the defendant.
What happened
Wilfred Labossiere sued N. Baxter under a federal civil-rights law, claiming deliberate indifference, retaliation, and denial of due process. Labossiere was representing himself.
The court had previously granted Baxter’s motion to dismiss and gave Labossiere time to file an amended complaint. After Labossiere did not file one or communicate with the court following a final warning, the court evaluated whether he had stopped pursuing the case.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail Labossiere a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Labossiere v. Downstate Correctional Facility · No. 7:21-cv-10538
- Kenneth Karas
- Aug. 29, 2025
Background
Wilfred Labossiere, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against N. Baxter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and denial of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On March 21, 2025, the court granted Baxter’s motion to dismiss in full. The court gave Labossiere 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. After Labossiere did not file an amended complaint, the court issued an order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Labossiere responded by letter, and the court gave him one final opportunity to file an amended complaint within 30 days. He did not do so and did not communicate with the court after May 2025.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with court orders. The court described dismissal under this rule as a harsh remedy, particularly for a person representing himself, but stated that self-represented litigants must still pursue their claims diligently.
The court considered five factors: the length of Labossiere’s failure to act, whether he received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to Baxter from additional delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving Labossiere a fair chance to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would work. The court found that the factors supported dismissal. It emphasized Labossiere’s three months of noncommunication, the warnings he received, the presumed prejudice from lengthy and unjustified delay, his failure to follow court directions, and the court’s consideration of less severe sanctions.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order states that dismissal without prejudice is not a decision on the merits. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail Labossiere a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.