White v. Miller
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-00668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In White v. Miller, Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice because White did not provide information needed to serve Miller or respond to the court.
Nicole P. White’s action against Marigrace Miller was dismissed without prejudice because White did not provide information needed for service or respond to the court’s order.
What happened
In White v. Miller, Nicole P. White sued Marigrace Miller and alleged that Miller helped cause false accusations of abuse and neglect and contributed to the termination of White’s parental rights. White was representing herself, and the court allowed the U.S. Marshals to serve Miller.
The Marshals could not serve Miller at the address White provided. The court ordered White to provide accurate contact information within 30 days and warned that the case could be dismissed, but White did not respond or provide new information. Nearly a year had passed since she filed the case, and Miller had not been located or served.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to White and close the case.
The detailed version
- White v. Miller · No. 7:19-cv-00668
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
Nicole P. White, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against Marigrace Miller on January 23, 2019. White alleged that Miller, whom White described as an employee at the Office of Children and Family Services, coerced a false accusation that White had sexually abused and neglected her daughter and teased White about a Christmas card and picture. White’s amended complaint added allegations about other acts that allegedly contributed to the termination of her parental rights.
The court granted White permission to proceed without paying filing fees and authorized the U.S. Marshals to complete service on Miller. The Marshals reported on June 19, 2019, that they could not serve Miller because she was not employed at the address White provided. White did not provide other contact or identifying information for Miller.
Failure to Prosecute
On November 4, 2019, the court ordered White to show why the case should not be dismissed and directed her to provide accurate contact information for Miller within 30 days so that service could be completed. The order warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal. The order was mailed to White on November 5, 2019, but she did not respond.
The court applied Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court considered the relevant factors, including the length of White’s inaction, the warning she received, possible prejudice from further delay, the need to manage the court’s resources while protecting the right to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
The court noted that more than four months passed after the Marshals reported that service had failed before the court directed White to provide new information. The summons had been issued more than nine months earlier, and nearly a year had passed since the action began without Miller being located or served. The court also noted that White had previously communicated with the court through several letters but did not respond to the order to show cause. It concluded that the factors supported dismissal and that dismissal without prejudice was an appropriate lesser sanction.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to White and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.