Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 19, 2020

Jackson v. Doe

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:18-cv-09274
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jackson v. Doe, Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice after Jackson failed to respond to an order to show cause about prosecuting it.

Who this affects

Kennin D. Jackson’s action against Jane Doe and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

In Jackson v. Doe, Kennin D. Jackson sued Jane Doe and other defendants in the Southern District of New York.

On July 6, 2020, the court ordered Jackson to explain by July 24 why the case should not be dismissed because he had failed to prosecute it. Jackson did not make the required showing.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. Doe · No. 1:18-cv-09274
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Aug. 19, 2020

Background

The court had ordered Jackson on July 6, 2020, to show why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The deadline for making that showing was July 24, 2020. The opinion states that Jackson did not make the required showing.

Ruling

The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Failure to prosecute means failing to move a case forward. The court cited precedent recognizing that Rule 41(b) gives a district court authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s case for this reason.

Effect

The order dismissed Jackson’s action against Jane Doe and the other defendants without prejudice. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain why Jackson failed to prosecute 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.