Staboleski v. New York Police Department
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-08834
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Staboleski v. City of New York, Judge Liman denied dismissal for failure to prosecute and set deadlines for a merits motion.
Jeffrey L. Staboleski and the City of New York; the case continued, with the City required to file its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by July 7, 2020.
What happened
Jeffrey L. Staboleski, who was representing himself, sued the City of New York. The court had repeatedly extended the City’s deadline to respond and postponed an initial conference.
The City asked to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, arguing that Staboleski had not maintained a current mailing address. The City did not provide evidence that mail sent to the address was returned or undeliverable, and it did not establish that Staboleski had abandoned the case.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. He directed the City to file its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim within 20 days and set deadlines for Staboleski’s opposition and the City’s reply.
The detailed version
- Staboleski v. New York Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-08834
- Lewis Liman
- June 16, 2020
Background
Jeffrey L. Staboleski filed the action on September 20, 2019, and proceeded without a lawyer. The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference and set a deadline for the City of New York to respond to the complaint. After several requests from the City, the court extended the response deadline and postponed the conference multiple times.
Staboleski had told the court that he had been released from prison and was prepared to participate in the conference. He did not receive advance notice of one postponement and appeared at the courthouse, where a member of the court’s staff told him about the new conference date. The City later failed to appear at another scheduled conference.
The City’s motion
The City filed a letter motion seeking dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning an alleged failure to move the case forward. Alternatively, it sought another 20-day extension to file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which means arguing that the complaint did not allege a legally sufficient claim.
The City based its failure-to-prosecute request on Staboleski’s alleged failure to maintain a current mailing address. The court stated that the City provided no evidence that mail sent to that address was undeliverable or returned. The court also stated that the City had not established that Staboleski had abandoned the action.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The court directed the City to file its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim within 20 days of the order, setting July 7, 2020, as the deadline. Staboleski’s opposition was due August 18, 2020, and the City’s reply, if any, was due September 1, 2020. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the City’s letter-motion docket entries.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.