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. New York City Department of Correction, Judge Abrams extended Castro’s response deadline and warned that nonresponse could lead to dismissal.
Marcelino Castro and the defendants City of New York, Janet Smith, Leisha Ortiz, Octavian Duggins, and Trishann Mowat.
What happened
Castro v. New York City Department of Correction concerns Defendants’ motion asking the court to decide the case without a trial. Castro had not responded by the original deadline or by two later deadlines.
The court gave Castro another opportunity to respond by January 31, 2020. He could either respond to the motion or tell the court that he did not intend to oppose it.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not dismiss the case in this order. She warned that if Castro did not respond, the court would dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Castro v. New York City Department of Correction · No. 1:16-cv-08147
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 2, 2020
Background
On October 3, 2019, Defendants City of New York, Janet Smith, Leisha Ortiz, Octavian Duggins, and Trishann Mowat filed a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request for a decision without a trial because the moving party claims the undisputed facts require judgment in its favor. Castro’s response was due October 24, 2019.
The court later ordered Castro to file either a response to the motion or a letter stating that he did not intend to respond by December 6, 2019. The court extended that deadline to December 30, 2019, but had received neither a response nor a letter.
Order
The court extended Castro’s deadline to January 31, 2020. The court stated that if Castro told the court he intended to continue the action but chose not to oppose the motion, the motion would be treated as fully submitted for the court’s decision. If Castro did not respond either by opposing the motion or by submitting the stated letter, the court would dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The order itself did not grant or deny the summary-judgment motion and did not dismiss the action. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Castro.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.