Valencia v. Westchester County
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-01699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Judge Briccetti dismissed Valencia v. Westchester County with prejudice after Valencia failed to amend his complaint or follow court orders.
Frank E. Valencia’s case was dismissed with prejudice, judgment was entered for Westchester County and the other defendants, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Valencia v. Westchester County, Frank E. Valencia, who represented himself and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, sued the county and several defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, but Valencia did not oppose them or request more time.
The court previously granted the defendants’ motions and allowed Valencia to file an amended complaint only for his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court warned that failing to amend or request more time by April 13, 2020, would lead it to treat the case as abandoned.
Valencia did not file an amended complaint, so the court dismissed the case with prejudice for failing to prosecute it and comply with court orders, directed judgment for the defendants, and closed the case. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also denied Valencia permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Valencia v. Westchester County · No. 7:19-cv-01699
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 7, 2020
Background
Frank E. Valencia proceeded without a lawyer and under a filing-fee waiver. He filed the complaint on February 14, 2019. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Alexis Gendell, Joon Park, and Raul Ulloa filed one motion to dismiss. Westchester County, Leandro Diaz, and Joseph K. Spano filed motions to dismiss as well. The court repeatedly set and extended deadlines for Valencia to file one opposition to the pending motions. Valencia did not oppose the motions or request an extension.
The court ultimately treated the motions as fully submitted and unopposed. In a March 13, 2020, Opinion and Order, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and gave Valencia permission to file an amended complaint only as to his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court ordered him to file that amended complaint, or request more time, by April 13, 2020. The order warned that failure to do so would be treated as abandonment of the case and would lead to judgment for the defendants and closure of the case.
Current ruling
Valencia did not file an amended complaint or request more time. The court concluded that he had abandoned the case. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders, the court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in the defendants’ favor and close the case.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, Valencia was denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order on May 7, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.