Pease v. New York City Police Department
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-07693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pease v. New York City Police Department, Judge Failla dismissed the case without prejudice after Pease failed to serve defendants or prosecute it.
Raine Pease's employment-discrimination action was dismissed without prejudice before the court decided the merits, and his request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Pease v. New York City Police Department, Raine Pease, representing himself, claimed that the New York City Police Department and Deodat Urprasad discriminated against him because of his race in employment.
The court found that more than 90 days had passed without any recorded attempt to serve the defendants or move the case forward. It replaced the Police Department with the City of New York and gave Pease until December 31, 2019, to serve the defendants, warning that failure to do so could lead to dismissal.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). She also denied Pease permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pease v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-07693
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
Raine Pease filed the action representing himself. The opinion states that his complaint alleged employment discrimination based on race against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and Deodat Urprasad.
The court referred the case to its mediation program and directed the Clerk of Court to try to locate free legal counsel for Pease at mediation. The opinion then states that, more than 90 days after the complaint was filed, the docket showed no attempt by Pease to serve the defendants and no action by him to prosecute the case.
Substitution and Warning
On November 25, 2019, the court ordered the Clerk to substitute the City of New York for the NYPD because the NYPD did not have the capacity to be sued. The court also extended Pease's deadline to serve the defendants until December 31, 2019. It warned that failing to serve the defendants by that date would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Ruling
Because Pease did not respond to the November 25 order and the docket showed no attempt to serve either defendant or otherwise prosecute the case, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling solely because of that dismissal, although the opinion does not discuss any possible refiling requirements or limitations.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Pease permission to appeal without paying the usual filing fees. The order did not decide whether Pease's race-discrimination allegations were valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.