Davis v. The Department of Corrections
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-10588
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In James E. Davis III v. Correct Care Solutions, Judge Halpern ordered Davis to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute.
James E. Davis III and the defendants in his case, including Correct Care Solutions, Wellpath, The Female Doctor, The Nurse Practitioner (Male), Veronica Tully, and three unidentified defendants.
What happened
James E. Davis III brought this case without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. After he filed an amended complaint, the court dismissed claims against Westchester County and the New York State Department of Corrections, found allegations against five other defendants insufficient, and gave him time to add facts. The court also sought information to identify three unnamed defendants.
Davis did not file the required second amended complaint or provide more information about the unnamed defendants. The court had warned that failing to do so within the extended deadline could lead to dismissal. The court said his failure to move the case forward interfered with the orderly handling of cases.
In James E. Davis III v. Correct Care Solutions, et al., Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered Davis to show cause in writing by September 28, 2020, why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case; it warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Davis v. The Department of Corrections · No. 7:19-cv-10588
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
James E. Davis III filed this action on November 12, 2019, and filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2020. He was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. The amended complaint named ten defendants.
On May 4, 2020, the court dismissed Davis's claims against Westchester County and the New York State Department of Corrections. It found that his allegations against Correct Care Solutions, Wellpath, The Female Doctor, The Nurse Practitioner (Male), and Veronica Tully were insufficient, but gave him leave to file a second amended complaint adding facts about those defendants. The court also directed the Westchester County Attorney to identify three defendants whom Davis had named only as John Does so that they could be served.
Davis did not file a second amended complaint within the original 30-day period. After the Westchester County Attorney reported that it could not identify the John Doe defendants, the court gave Davis another 30 days to provide more detailed information and extended his time to file the second amended complaint. The court warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Davis did neither.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district judge to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward, or for failure to comply with court orders. The court relied on that rule and stated that Davis's inaction impeded the court's efforts to handle cases in an orderly and timely way.
Order
The court ordered Davis to explain in writing by September 28, 2020, why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). A dismissal with prejudice would bar refiling the dismissed action. The court stated that failing to comply with this order would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order itself was an order to show cause, not an order dismissing the case. The clerk was directed to mail a copy to Davis at the address listed in the court's electronic filing system.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.