Rodgers v. City of Yonkers
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-05358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rodgers v. City of Yonkers, Judge Briccetti ordered the plaintiff to update his address, warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The order directly affected Prince Rodgers by requiring him to provide a current address by January 28, 2020 and by denying fee-free status for an appeal from the order.
What happened
In Rodgers v. City of Yonkers, Prince Rodgers brought a case against the City of Yonkers and two detectives while he was incarcerated. He was proceeding without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees.
The court received a mailed order back as undeliverable after Rodgers reported a new address. Earlier court instructions had told him to notify the court in writing of any address change.
The court ordered Rodgers to provide his current address in writing by January 28, 2020, and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failing to pursue the case or follow court orders. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Rodgers v. City of Yonkers · No. 7:19-cv-05358
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 7, 2020
Background
Prince Rodgers filed this action while incarcerated and was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The defendants named in the caption are the City of Yonkers, Detective Michelle Piciulli, and Detective Neal Cromwell.
Rodgers filed a notice reporting a new address. The court later received one of its orders back as undeliverable, marked that it could not be forwarded. The court’s earlier order and its instructions for people without attorneys stated that Rodgers was responsible for notifying the court in writing of any address change and that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Order
The court ordered Rodgers to update his current address in writing by January 28, 2020. It warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal for failure to pursue the case or comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not dismiss the action.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Rodgers permission to appeal without paying court fees.
Disposition
The court issued an address-update order and warning; it did not state that it dismissed the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.