Morrison v. Ramineni
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-02609
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morrison v. Ramineni, Judge Roman dismissed Morrison’s case under Rule 41(b) because he did not file the required amended complaint or seek more time.
The dismissal ended Quadean A. Morrison’s action against Dr. Ramineni and Dr. Makran without deciding the underlying medical-care allegations in this order.
What happened
In Morrison v. Ramineni, pro se plaintiff Quadean A. Morrison alleged that Dr. Ramineni and Dr. Makran denied him adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The court had previously dismissed Morrison’s amended complaint and allowed him until February 15, 2019, to file another amended complaint. Morrison requested free legal assistance but neither filed the new complaint nor asked for more time.
Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) because Morrison failed to prosecute it. The court directed the clerk to terminate the action and serve Morrison with the order.
The detailed version
- Morrison v. Ramineni · No. 7:17-cv-02609
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Pro se plaintiff Quadean A. Morrison brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Ramineni, M.D., and Dr. Makran, M.D. Morrison alleged that the defendants denied him adequate medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Earlier proceedings and failure to prosecute
In an earlier opinion and order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Morrison’s amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6), and 12(e). The court gave Morrison until February 15, 2019, to file a second amended complaint that complied with that opinion and order. Morrison later requested pro bono counsel, but he did not file a second amended complaint or request an extension of time.
Ruling
The court explained that Rule 41(b) permits a district judge to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The court found that Morrison had taken no steps to advance the action for almost a year and that his inaction impeded the court’s efforts to manage its calendar and resolve cases promptly. Accordingly, the court dismissed the action pursuant to Rule 41(b). The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the action, serve Morrison with the order at the address listed on the docket, and file proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.