Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 26, 2025

Jimenez v. Lashley

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:23-cv-00628
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Steven Jimenez v. Mr. Lashley, Judge Roman dismissed the action without prejudice for want of prosecution after Jimenez failed to respond.

Who this affects

Steven Jimenez’s action was dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action and send Jimenez a copy.

What happened

Steven Jimenez, who was representing himself, brought Steven Jimenez v. Mr. Lashley, et al. in January 2023. The court later noted that a clerical error had prevented Jimenez from receiving some filings because of an address problem.

The court said Jimenez had not communicated with it for more than eleven months. It also said he failed to respond to an August 28, 2025 order requiring him to explain by September 24 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution; that order was sent to his correct address.

Judge Nelson S. Roman ordered the action dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. The clerk was directed to send Jimenez a copy of the order and terminate the action.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jimenez v. Lashley · No. 7:23-cv-00628
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Sept. 26, 2025

Background

Pro se Plaintiff Steven Jimenez commenced this action on or about January 20, 2023. On August 28, 2025, the Court ordered him to show cause in writing by September 24, 2025, explaining why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.

The Court acknowledged that, earlier in 2025, Jimenez had not received filings because of a clerical error concerning his mailing address. But the Court stated that, despite that error, Jimenez had not attempted to communicate with the Court for more than eleven months. The August 28 order was mailed to his correct address on August 29, 2025, and Jimenez did not comply with it.

Ruling

The Court concluded that Jimenez’s failure to prosecute impeded the orderly and expeditious handling of cases and halted the adversary process because he was essentially unresponsive. Judge Nelson S. Roman ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. The Clerk of Court was directed to send Jimenez a copy of the order at the address listed in the electronic filing system and terminate the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.