Ager v. Goodell
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Ager v. Goodell was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute after plaintiffs did not respond, Judge Furman ruled.
The plaintiffs, including Leon Maurice Ager, were affected by the dismissal, the finding that prior service was improper, and the denial of permission to appeal without paying filing costs. The defendants were affected by the closing of the case.
What happened
In Leon Maurice Ager et al. v. Roger Goodell et al., the plaintiffs did not communicate with the court by the deadline about whether they had properly served the defendants.
The court had warned that failing to respond would lead it to find the service improper and dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers.
Judge Jesse M. Furman deemed the prior service improper and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. He also denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying the filing costs after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ager v. Goodell · No. 1:25-cv-03630
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers. The court had issued an order requiring them to communicate by November 24, 2025, about whether service on the defendants was proper. The order warned that failing to communicate would cause the court to deem the prior service improper and dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
The plaintiffs did not communicate with the court by that deadline.
Legal standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a federal court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court described dismissal as one of the harshest sanctions available and said courts must consider the length of the failure, whether the plaintiff was warned, possible prejudice to defendants, the court’s need to manage its docket, the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be appropriate.
Ruling
The court concluded that dismissal was warranted because the plaintiffs failed to communicate as required. Because they were proceeding without lawyers, however, the court determined that dismissal without prejudice was more appropriate than dismissal with prejudice.
The court ordered that the prior service be deemed improper and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying the filing costs. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order to the plaintiffs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.