Jackson v. Annucci

Background

The court scheduled an initial case-management and scheduling conference for March 25, 2020. Chambers mailed Jackson a copy of the scheduling order at the address listed on the docket. The court later directed the parties to attend by telephone and mailed Jackson additional orders explaining how to join the call. The opinion states that Jackson was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees.

The defendants’ lawyer appeared by telephone on March 25, but Jackson did not appear and provided no excuse or explanation. The court adjourned the conference to April 24, 2020, and expressly warned Jackson that failing to attend again could lead the court to consider the case abandoned and dismiss it for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court mailed that order to Jackson at the docket address. None of the orders mailed to Jackson was returned as undeliverable.

Ruling

The defendants’ lawyer appeared for the April 24 conference, but Jackson again did not appear and gave no excuse or explanation. The court also called the telephone number listed for Jackson, but the number appeared to be disconnected. After considering the factors identified in a cited Second Circuit decision, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti concluded that Jackson had abandoned the case. The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Rule 41(b), and instructed the clerk to close the case.

The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Effect of the Order

The order ended this case and barred refiling because the dismissal was with prejudice. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.