Gonzalez v. United States
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:16-cv-03481
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gonzalez v. United States, Judge Ramos ordered a joint status report by April 15, 2020, warning that noncompliance could lead to sanctions.
Anibal Gonzalez and the United States were required to file a joint status report by April 15, 2020; failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
What happened
Gonzalez v. United States had been paused while courts resolved two related appeals, United States v. Hill and United States v. Barrett. The parties did not provide the required update after those matters were resolved.
The court ordered Anibal Gonzalez and the United States to file a joint status report by April 15, 2020. It warned that failing to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Edgardo Ramos issued the order on April 1, 2020. The opinion does not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-03481
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 1, 2020
Background
Anibal Gonzalez filed this action on May 10, 2016. On August 30, 2016, the court stayed the action, meaning it paused the case, while the courts resolved United States v. Hill and United States v. Barrett. The Supreme Court later vacated and sent back the judgment in Barrett, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit resolved that case on August 30, 2019. The order also references the related criminal docket, No. 13 Cr. 823 (ER).
Order
The court's earlier order required the parties to provide a status update within 30 days after the later-resolved case received a final decision. The parties did not do so. The court therefore directed the parties to file a joint status report no later than April 15, 2020.
Warning and Disposition
The court warned that failure to comply with the order could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide the underlying dispute in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.