Best v. The City of N.Y.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-05973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Best v. The City of New York, Judge Wang gave pro se plaintiff a final deadline to update his address and oppose dismissal, warning of possible consequences.
Sean Best, the self-represented plaintiff, was required to update his address and respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the defendants’ motion could be treated as unopposed if he failed to do so.
What happened
In Sean Best v. The City of New York, Sean Best had not responded to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, despite receiving a second extension. The court learned that its prior order had been returned because the mailing address Best provided had been incorrect since about September 24, 2019.
The court ordered Best to provide a current mailing address. Because he was representing himself, the court gave him one final extension until February 14, 2020 to provide the address and file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
The order warned that failing to meet the deadline could lead the court to treat the motion as unopposed or recommend dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Best at the address listed on the docket.
The detailed version
- Best v. The City of N.Y. · No. 1:18-cv-05973
- George Daniels
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
Sean Best, who was proceeding without a lawyer, had not filed a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On December 6, 2019, the court had granted him a second extension of time to respond. The court later learned that the December 6 order had been returned as undeliverable because Best’s mailing address had been incorrect since approximately September 24, 2019.
Order
The court ordered Best to provide a current mailing address. In light of his self-represented status, the court granted one final extension until February 14, 2020 for him to both provide a current address and file an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Possible Consequences
The court warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in the defendants’ motion being considered unopposed and/or a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff does not adequately pursue a case. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Best at the address listed on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.