Morales v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-08079
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morales v. City of New York, Judge Torres dismissed the case without prejudice because Morales did not timely serve defendants despite notice.
Lyshineek Morales and the named defendants; the case was closed without a decision on the underlying claims.
What happened
Morales v. City of New York began when Lyshineek Morales sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and correctional officers identified in the complaint.
The court repeatedly ordered the parties to submit case-management materials and directed Morales to explain the lack of progress and service. No required submissions were filed, Morales did not respond, and the court received no proof that any defendant had been served.
Judge Analisa Torres dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Morales did not timely serve the defendants after receiving notice that dismissal was possible. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Morales v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-08079
- Analisa Torres
- July 3, 2020
Background
Lyshineek Morales filed this action against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, Captain “Jane” Richardson, Correction Officer “Jane” Reed, and Correction Officer “Jane Does.” The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
After the case was filed, the court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management plan. The parties did not file those materials by the deadline. The court extended the deadline and later ordered Morales to submit a letter explaining the status of the case. Morales did not respond.
Rule 4(m) and Notice
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires dismissal without prejudice when a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, subject to the rule’s requirements. The court explained that it could dismiss the case on its own initiative if Morales first received notice that dismissal was possible.
The court’s November 4, 2019 order warned Morales that the case could be dismissed for failure to make timely service and gave her a deadline to explain the lack of prosecution and any continuing efforts to serve the defendants. The court found that this provided clear notice. Morales had not communicated with the court since starting the action and had not filed proof of service for any defendant.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to timely effect service under Rule 4(m). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order did not decide the merits of Morales’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.