Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 12, 2020

Han v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:19-cv-09251
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Han v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute after missed court deadlines, Judge Liman ruled.

Who this affects

Bing Han and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

What happened

Han sued United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on October 7, 2019, and proceeded without a lawyer. The case had little activity after filing.

The court twice warned Han to explain the lack of activity and state whether he intended to continue the case. Han did not submit the required letters, although he filed proof of service.

Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.

The detailed version

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

Case
Han v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 1:19-cv-09251
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
May 12, 2020

Background

Bing Han filed the Complaint on October 7, 2019, and proceeded without a lawyer. The docket showed no activity by Han between the filing and February 4, 2020, when the case was reassigned to Judge Liman.

Court Orders and Activity

On February 11, 2020, the court ordered Han to explain why he had not served the Summons and Complaint within the 90-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or to state when and how service had been made if he believed United States Citizenship and Immigration Services had been served. The court warned that it might dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute if Han did not submit a letter.

Han did not submit the requested letter. He filed proof of service on February 25, 2020, stating that an individual had accepted service on behalf of the defendant on October 10, 2019. The filing also included email correspondence showing that Han had forwarded the February 11 order to an email address and wrote that he did not previously know anything about the complaint's result.

On April 10, 2020, the court ordered Han to submit a status letter by May 11, 2020, explaining whether and how he intended to continue the case. The order warned that the action could be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he did not respond. No letter was received.

Ruling

The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a district court to dismiss a plaintiff's case on its own for failure to prosecute. The court stated that, except for serving the defendant, Han had taken no action to prosecute the case during the seven months after filing and had twice been warned that failing to explain the inactivity could lead to dismissal.

Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

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.