Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 3, 2020

Phipps v. City of New York

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:17-cv-06603
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Phipps v. City of New York, Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice because Phipps failed to prosecute.

Who this affects

Danny Phipps’s case was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not describe any further effect on the City of New York or the other defendants.

What happened

Phipps v. City of New York involved Danny Phipps’s lawsuit against the City of New York and other defendants. The court had ordered Phipps to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.\n\nPhipps was required to respond by February 7, 2020, and was warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice. The opinion states that he did not respond.\n\nJudge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The detailed version

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

Case
Phipps v. City of New York · No. 1:17-cv-06603
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Apr. 3, 2020

Background

The court had ordered Plaintiff Danny Phipps on January 21, 2020, to show why his action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court set February 7, 2020, as the deadline for that response and warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal.

Court’s Reasoning

The court stated that Phipps had not responded as of April 3, 2020. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action when the plaintiff fails to prosecute it. The opinion did not address the merits of Phipps’s claims.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not address whether any other legal limits would apply.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.