Barker v. The City of New York

Background

Akasha Tania Barker, representing herself, sued The City of New York. She alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The City filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court extended Barker’s deadline to respond to January 17, 2020, and warned that failing to respond could result in dismissal of the case and no trial. Barker did not submit a response.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning a plaintiff’s failure to move the case forward or comply with a court order. It evaluated the duration of Barker’s failure, her notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the City, the court’s need to manage its docket, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.

The court found that nearly four months had passed since the City filed its motion, Barker had received explicit warning of the possible consequences, and the prejudice to the City and the court had been minimal. Because Barker was representing herself and a less severe sanction was appropriate, the court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was warranted.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed Barker’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion did not decide the merits of Barker’s disability, housing, or constitutional claims.