Castro v. New York City Department of Correction
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:16-cv-08147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Castro v. City of New York, Judge Abrams extended Castro’s deadline to respond to summary judgment and warned that nonresponse could lead to dismissal.
Marcelino Castro, whose response deadline was extended and who was warned that the action might be dismissed for failure to prosecute; the defendants, whose summary-judgment motion remained pending.
What happened
In Marcelino Castro v. City of New York, Janet Smith, Leisha Ortiz, Octavian Duggins, and Trishann Mowat, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 3, 2019. Castro’s response was due October 24, 2019, but he did not respond after the court previously gave him until December 6 to do so.
The court extended Castro’s deadline to December 30, 2019. Castro could either respond to the motion or tell the court that he did not intend to respond. If he said he wanted to continue the case but did not oppose the motion, the court would treat the motion as fully submitted.
Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that if Castro did not respond to the order, the court might dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk was directed to mail Castro a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Castro v. New York City Department of Correction · No. 1:16-cv-08147
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 3, 2019. Summary judgment is a request for a ruling without a trial because the moving party contends that the undisputed facts require judgment in its favor. Castro’s response was due October 24, 2019.
On November 15, 2019, the court ordered Castro either to respond to the motion or to send a letter stating that he did not intend to respond by December 6, 2019. The court had received neither a response nor a letter.
Order
The court extended Castro’s deadline to December 30, 2019. It stated that if Castro informed the court that he intended to pursue the action but chose not to oppose the defendants’ motion, the court would deem the motion fully briefed and take it under submission.
The court further stated that if Castro did not respond to the order by either responding to the summary-judgment motion or submitting the requested letter, it might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk was directed to mail Castro a copy of the order.
Disposition and Significance
This order did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion or the merits of the case. It extended Castro’s response deadline and warned of a possible dismissal if he failed to respond. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on December 12, 2019.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.