Harris v. Westchester County Department of Corrections
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:17-cv-00839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Harris v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, Judge Karas dismissed Harris’s case without prejudice after he stopped communicating with the court.
Myles Deante Clay Harris’s action was dismissed without prejudice, ending the case because he did not continue communicating with the court or respond to its order. The opinion does not state the effect on any separate claims or proceedings.
What happened
In Harris v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, Myles Deante Clay Harris’s case had continued after the court partly granted and partly denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court later learned that Harris had been transferred, could not reach him, and had not updated his address or otherwise communicated with the court.
The court gave Harris 30 days to explain why the case should not be dismissed. He did not respond, attend a scheduled conference, or contact the court. The court concluded that these failures justified dismissal for not pursuing the case.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Harris.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Westchester County Department of Corrections · No. 7:17-cv-00839
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
Myles Deante Clay Harris filed the action on February 2, 2017. The defendants answered, and the court later partially granted and partially denied their motion for summary judgment. The court scheduled a status conference for December 3, 2019.
At that conference, defense counsel reported that Harris had been transferred to a different facility from the one listed as his address in the court record. The court could not reach Harris using the available telephone number. Harris had not updated his address or otherwise communicated with the court after an April 4, 2019 notice of address change. His last substantive filing was his opposition to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, filed November 13, 2018.
Failure to Prosecute
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or comply with court rules or orders. The court also stated that a district court may dismiss a case for this reason on its own authority, even without a motion from the defendants.
The court considered the factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute, including the length of the plaintiff’s delay, notice that continued delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the balance between court congestion and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
The court found that the factors supported dismissal. Harris had not meaningfully communicated with the court for an extended period, did not appear at the scheduled status conference, could not be reached, and did not respond to the order directing him to explain why the case should remain open. That order warned that failure to respond within 30 days would result in dismissal with prejudice, but the court’s final ruling dismissed the action without prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed Harris’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Harris a copy of the order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.