Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 11, 2020

McCray v. State of New York

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:17-cv-01395
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In McCray v. State of New York, Judge Roman dismissed the case because McCray did not file the required amended complaint or otherwise pursue it.

Who this affects

The dismissal ended Cerious D. McCray’s federal civil-rights action against the State of New York and the other defendants named in the case.

What happened

Cerious D. McCray, who was incarcerated and represented himself, brought a civil-rights case against the State of New York and others under federal law.

The court had dismissed earlier versions of McCray’s complaint and gave him one final opportunity to file a proper second amended complaint by February 28, 2020. McCray did not file it or otherwise communicate with the court.

Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the action for failure to prosecute, meaning McCray did not take the required steps to move the case forward. The clerk was directed to close the case and serve McCray with the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McCray v. State of New York · No. 7:17-cv-01395
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Mar. 11, 2020

Background

Cerious D. McCray, who was incarcerated at Dutchess County Jail and proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, on February 28, 2017. He paid the filing fee because the opinion states that he was barred from filing civil actions without paying the fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he faced an imminent risk of serious physical injury.

The court dismissed McCray’s original complaint on March 13, 2018, but allowed him to file an amended complaint. The court later dismissed his amended complaint because it did not comply with the court’s amendment order or federal pleading requirements. Because McCray was representing himself, the court gave him one final opportunity to file a pleading stating a viable claim and warned that no further opportunities would be provided. The court extended his deadline to February 28, 2020.

Failure to Prosecute

McCray did not file the required second amended complaint and did not otherwise communicate with the court. The court found that he had failed to comply with several court orders and had taken no steps to advance the action for several months.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district judge may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute, meaning the plaintiff has not actively pursued the case. The court considered the duration of McCray’s failures, the notice he had received that additional delay could lead to dismissal, the effect of further delay on the case, the need for orderly case management, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the action because of McCray’s failure to prosecute. The opinion’s conclusion states that the dismissal was under “Fed R. Civ. P. 41(6),” although the discussion of the governing rule identifies 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 McCray with the order at the address listed on the docket, and file proof of service.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.