Erazo v. The City of Yonkers
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-10834
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Judge Briccetti dismissed Erazo v. The City of Yonkers with prejudice after Erazo failed to appear and follow court orders.
Jose L. Erazo’s case was dismissed with prejudice, ending his action against the City of Yonkers and the four named police officers; the court also denied him fee-free appeal status.
What happened
Erazo v. The City of Yonkers was brought by Jose L. Erazo, who was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying court fees. He sued the City of Yonkers and four police officers.
The court repeatedly told Erazo to update his address. After he was released from custody, he did not update his address, did not appear at two scheduled conferences, and did not explain his absences or request more time.
Judge Briccetti granted the defendants’ request and dismissed the case with prejudice for failing to prosecute it and comply with court orders. The court also denied Erazo permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Erazo v. The City of Yonkers · No. 7:18-cv-10834
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Jose L. Erazo filed a complaint dated November 13, 2018, against the City of Yonkers, P.O. Philip Wanderman, P.O. John Ojeda, P.O. James Pellegrino, and P.O. Anthony Scaramuzzo. He was representing himself and had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. At that time, he was incarcerated at Westchester County Jail.
The court repeatedly reminded Erazo that he had to promptly provide a written update if his address changed. After Erazo said he was scheduled to move to a new facility, the court again reminded him of that obligation and later ordered him to provide his current address by a specified deadline. The court warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Erazo submitted two letters updating his address in May 2019.
After defendants learned that Erazo had been released from Bare Hill Correctional Facility to parole on November 4, 2019, the court ordered him to update his address again by January 6, 2020. Erazo did not do so. He also failed to appear, without explanation, at a December 11, 2019 status conference. The court adjourned that conference to January 22, 2020, and warned that another failure to appear would result in dismissal.
Ruling
At the January 22, 2020 status conference, defendants’ counsel appeared, but Erazo again failed to appear without excuse or explanation. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court orders.
The court granted defendants’ application. After considering the factors identified in Lucas v. Miles, the court concluded that Erazo had abandoned the case and dismissed it with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The Clerk was instructed to close the case and mail the order to Erazo at the address on the docket.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Erazo permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.