Murray v. City of Port Jervis
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-00802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Murray v. City of Port Jervis: Judge Karas dismissed Michael Murray’s case with prejudice after he failed to amend his complaint or respond to the court.
Michael Murray’s case against the City of Port Jervis and Michael Decker was dismissed with prejudice because Murray failed to file the required amended complaint and failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause.
What happened
In Murray v. City of Port Jervis, Michael Murray brought claims involving alleged violations of the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court had allowed him to amend his complaint after an earlier screening dismissal, and defendants later filed a motion to dismiss.
The court terminated that motion and ordered Murray to file a second amended complaint by October 4, 2019. He did not do so and did not respond to the court’s later order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed. More than 30 days passed without a response.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The ruling was based on Murray’s failure to follow the court’s order and communicate about the case, not on a decision about whether his constitutional claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Murray v. City of Port Jervis · No. 7:18-cv-00802
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
Michael Murray brought the action against the City of Port Jervis and Michael Decker, asserting, among other claims, violations of the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court initially granted Murray permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. It then dismissed his complaint under the statute governing screening of claims filed by people proceeding without paying fees, but allowed him 30 days to amend.
Murray filed an amended complaint. Defendants later filed a motion to dismiss. The court received a document from Murray that appeared to address a different case. After Murray requested additional time to amend, the court terminated the pending motion and ordered him to file a second amended complaint by October 4, 2019. Murray did not file that complaint. Apart from filing a consent to electronic service, he did not otherwise communicate with the court after September 2019.
Failure to Prosecute
Defendants asked the court to dismiss the action because Murray had not amended his pleadings or complied with the court’s directive. The court then issued an order requiring Murray to explain within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case. Murray did not respond.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the rules or a court order. The court also stated that a district court has authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute on its own, even without a motion from the defendant. Before doing so, the court considered the duration of Murray’s failures, the notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice from further delay, the balance between court-management needs and Murray’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas concluded that these factors supported dismissal. Murray had missed the deadline to file a second amended complaint, failed to respond to the order to show cause, and had not communicated with the court about the action for months. The court dismissed Murray’s case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion did not decide the merits of Murray’s constitutional claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Murray.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.