Murray v. The State of New York
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-04705
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jaheim Murray v. S. Smythe, Judge Karas dismissed the case without prejudice because Murray failed to prosecute it.
Jaheim Murray’s federal civil-rights action against S. Smythe was dismissed without prejudice; the court had previously dismissed Murray’s claims against the State of New York.
What happened
Jaheim Murray v. S. Smythe involved a complaint by Murray, who was representing himself, under a federal civil-rights law against S. Smythe. The court had previously dismissed Murray’s claims against the State of New York and allowed the case against Smythe to continue.
After Smythe was served, Murray did not seek a default judgment or otherwise communicate with the court after August 9, 2018. Court mailings were later returned as undeliverable, and Murray did not respond to two orders requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed Murray’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court found that the length of Murray’s inaction, his notice that the case could be dismissed, and his failure to respond supported dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The detailed version
- Murray v. The State of New York · No. 7:18-cv-04705
- Kenneth Karas
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
Jaheim Murray, representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of New York and S. Smythe, identified in the opinion as a correction officer at Downstate Correctional Facility. The court previously dismissed the claims against the State of New York as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It allowed Murray to serve Smythe through the U.S. Marshals Service. Smythe was served on September 10, 2018, but did not timely answer or otherwise respond.
Murray had not filed a request for a default judgment or communicated with the court since August 9, 2018. On March 12, 2020, the court ordered Murray to seek a default judgment within 45 days or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court later granted Smythe additional time to respond and set a schedule for a possible motion to dismiss. After mailings to Murray were returned as unclaimed or undeliverable, the court issued another order on June 25, 2020, requiring Murray to explain by July 25 why the case should not be dismissed. Murray did not respond or otherwise contact the court.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or orders. The court explained that a district court has authority to issue this dismissal even when the defendant has not filed a motion asking for it. Because dismissal for failure to prosecute is a harsh remedy, the court considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s failures, notice that delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendant, the balance between court efficiency and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser penalties would be effective.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas concluded that the factors favored dismissal. Murray had been told that he had to notify the court of an address change and that failure to do so could result in dismissal. He had not supplied an updated address, had not communicated with the court for nearly two years, and had not responded to either order directing him to show why the case should continue.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion also directed counsel for Smythe to mail Murray a copy of the order and certify on the docket that the mailing was completed by August 7, 2020. The court did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.