Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-00139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda: Judge Oetken granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed the action without prejudice for discovery noncompliance.
Abdul H. Abdullah’s action against City of New York, Carlos Garcia, and Seyed N. Huda was dismissed without prejudice after Abdullah failed to comply with discovery requests and a court order.
What happened
In Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, Abdul H. Abdullah, representing himself and without paying filing fees, sought damages over a traffic stop and later arrest by the New York Police Department. The opinion says he brought the claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1989.
Defendants City of New York, Carlos Garcia, and Seyed N. Huda moved to dismiss after Abdullah did not answer interrogatories or provide requested documents, despite an order requiring him to do so and warning that the case could be dismissed. No party timely objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the motion.
Judge James Oetken found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, granted Defendants’ motion, and dismissed the action without prejudice under Rules 41(b) and 37(b)(2). The court also directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda · No. 1:24-cv-00139
- James Oetken
- Nov. 24, 2025
Background
Abdul H. Abdullah commenced the action on January 2, 2024, and filed an amended complaint on February 5, 2024. The opinion states that Abdullah was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He sought damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1989 for alleged civil-rights violations connected to a traffic stop and subsequent arrest by the New York Police Department.
In August 2024, Defendants City of New York, Carlos Garcia, and Seyed N. Huda served Abdullah with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Abdullah did not respond. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis ordered him to respond and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal of the case.
Motion and Recommendation
On June 9, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 37(b)(2). Rule 41(b) addresses dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders. Rule 37(b)(2) permits sanctions, including dismissal, for failing to obey discovery orders. On October 20, 2025, Magistrate Judge Willis issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the motion be granted.
No party filed a timely objection. When there is no timely objection, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. Judge Oetken found no clear error in the recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Oetken fully adopted the Report and Recommendation. Defendants’ motion was granted, and the action was dismissed without prejudice under Rules 41(b) and 37(b)(2). The opinion does not state that the court decided whether Abdullah’s underlying civil-rights allegations were valid. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 41 and 47 and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.