Murphy v. ERT Medical Officer K. Rodriguez
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-06998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Murphy v. Rodriguez: Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice because Murphy failed to prosecute it.
Adam E. Murphy’s case was closed because he did not file the required amended complaint or respond to the court’s order to show cause. The defendants were affected by the dismissal, but the court did not decide the underlying claims against them.
What happened
In Adam E. Murphy v. ERT Medical Officer K. Rodriguez, et al., Adam E. Murphy sued ERT Officers K. Rodriguez, Pullen, and Prelvukaj, and Orange County, under a federal civil-rights law. Murphy was representing himself.
The court had reopened the case and given Murphy 30 additional days to file a second amended complaint. Murphy did not file it. He also did not respond to the court’s later order asking why the case should not be dismissed, and he had not communicated with the court since April 29, 2025.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court found that Murphy’s extended failure to respond, the warnings he received, presumed prejudice to the defendants, and the lack of a less severe effective sanction supported dismissal.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. ERT Medical Officer K. Rodriguez · No. 7:23-cv-06998
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Adam E. Murphy brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against ERT Officers K. Rodriguez, Pullen, and Prelvukaj, and Orange County. Murphy proceeded without a lawyer.
On May 22, 2025, the court reopened the case and gave Murphy 30 additional days to file a second amended complaint. Murphy did not respond. On July 22, 2025, the court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Murphy to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The deadline to respond was August 21, 2025. Murphy did not respond or otherwise communicate with the court after April 29, 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 considered five factors: the length of Murphy’s failures, whether he had notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the balance between managing the court’s calendar and preserving Murphy’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.
The court found that the factors favored dismissal. Murphy had not communicated with the court for nearly five months. He had been warned that failing to file the second amended complaint and failing to respond to the order to show cause could result in dismissal. The court presumed prejudice to the defendants because the delay was lengthy and unexplained. Although the case had not significantly burdened the court’s calendar, the court found dismissal appropriate because Murphy had not followed court directives or communicated with the court. The court also considered less severe sanctions but concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Murphy appeared to have abandoned the case.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail Murphy a copy of the order. The dismissal was based on Murphy’s failure to pursue the case; the order did not decide the underlying § 1983 claims.
Effect of the Order
The case was closed without prejudice, and the defendants did not receive a merits ruling on the claims against them. The opinion does not otherwise describe what legal steps, if any, Murphy may take after the dismissal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.