Langston v. Bastian
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-08859
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Langston v. Bastian, Judge Schofield dismissed the case for failure to prosecute after Langston repeatedly failed to respond to court deadlines.
Barry Langston, the self-represented plaintiff, was affected by the dismissal. S. Bastian and the other defendants were directed to mail him the order and document that mailing.
What happened
Langston v. Bastian involved a case in which Barry Langston, who was representing himself, did not respond to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion or later court instructions. The court had directed him to say whether he intended to continue litigating the case.
Langston did not respond by the original deadline or by the extended deadline. The opinion also states that he had not communicated with the court since a September 5, 2019, conference.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and directed the defendants to mail Langston a copy of the order and document that mailing on the docket. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Langston v. Bastian · No. 1:18-cv-08859
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 23, 2020
Background
The court stated that it had issued an order on February 13, 2020, directing Plaintiff Barry Langston to file a letter saying whether he intended to continue litigating the case. That order warned that if he did not respond, the court might dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
The opinion states that Defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment on September 26, 2019. Langston did not timely respond to that motion and did not respond after the deadline was extended. He also had not communicated with the court since appearing at a conference on September 5, 2019.
Ruling
The court considered the factors relevant to dismissal for failure to prosecute, including the length of the plaintiff’s failures, whether he had notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, and whether further delay would likely prejudice the defendant. It ordered that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court directed the defendants to mail a copy of the order to Langston, who was representing himself, and to file proof of mailing on the docket. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.