Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 17, 2020

Smith v. Dinoia

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:19-cv-04471
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureSection 1983
In one sentence

In Smith v. Dinoia, Judge Karas dismissed the previously dismissed claims with prejudice and the remaining claims without prejudice after Smith failed to prosecute.

Who this affects

Devonte Smith’s case was closed: the claims previously dismissed against Borehill, Diaz, Watkins, Vollmer, Peters, Thomalin, Del Treste, and Shultis were dismissed with prejudice, while all remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. The defendants were affected by the termination of the action.

What happened

In Smith v. Dinoia, Devonte Smith brought a federal civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several correctional and law-enforcement defendants. The court had previously dismissed claims against some defendants but gave Smith 30 days to file an amended complaint if he wanted to continue those claims.

Smith did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. After the court issued an order requiring him to explain why the previously dismissed claims should not be permanently dismissed, the order was returned as undeliverable, and Smith did not respond or otherwise contact the court. The court also noted that Smith had been warned to keep the court informed of any address change.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas ruled that Smith’s failure to prosecute justified dismissing the previously dismissed claims with prejudice and dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Smith’s last known address and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Smith v. Dinoia · No. 7:19-cv-04471
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
July 17, 2020

Background

Devonte Smith brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against certain government officials for violating federal rights. The defendants named in the opinion included Deputy Commissioner Leandro Diaz, Assistant Wardens Karl Vollmer and R. Watkins, Detective John V. Peters, Captain Thomalin, Sergeants Del Treste and Shultis, Correctional Officer M. Dinoia, Correctional Officer Holness, Captain Roberts, Sergeant Borehill, and an unidentified ADA of Mount Pleasant.

On March 12, 2020, the court dismissed Smith’s claims against Borehill, Diaz, Watkins, Vollmer, Peters, Thomalin, Del Treste, and Shultis. The court gave Smith 30 days to file an amended complaint if he wanted to continue pursuing claims against those defendants.

Failure to Prosecute

Smith did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. On June 8, 2020, the court issued an order requiring him to explain by July 10, 2020, why the claims previously dismissed without prejudice should not instead be dismissed with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice generally bars refiling the dismissed claims; dismissal without prejudice does not impose that bar. The order was returned as undeliverable, and Smith did not respond or otherwise communicate with the court.

The court also noted that Smith had repeatedly been told that he had to notify the court in writing if his address changed and that failing to do so could lead to dismissal. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to move the case forward or fails to comply with court rules or a court order. The court considered the length of Smith’s delay, the warnings he received, possible prejudice from further delay, the need to manage the court’s docket while protecting a party’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

Ruling

The court concluded that these factors supported dismissal for failure to prosecute. It converted the earlier dismissal of the claims against Borehill, Diaz, Watkins, Vollmer, Peters, Thomalin, Del Treste, and Shultis from without prejudice to with prejudice. It dismissed all remaining claims without prejudice. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Smith’s last known address and close the case. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.