Chavis v. Korobkova
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-00083
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chavis v. Korobkova, Judge Briccetti dismissed the case with prejudice after Chavis failed to amend his complaint or seek more time.
Katron Chavis’s case was dismissed with prejudice, ending his action against Yelena Korobkova and Edwin Uzu. Chavis was also denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
What happened
Chavis v. Korobkova involved a complaint filed by Katron Chavis, who was representing himself and was incarcerated. The court had previously allowed him to amend one medical-care claim against Yelena Korobkova and Edwin Uzu.
The court extended the deadline for Chavis to file an amended complaint or request more time to September 14, 2020. It warned that failing to do either would be treated as abandoning the case. Chavis did neither, and the court received no indication that he had not received its orders.
Judge Briccetti dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Chavis v. Korobkova · No. 7:19-cv-00083
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
Katron Chavis, proceeding without a lawyer and with permission to proceed without paying filing fees, filed this action in December 2018. The opinion states that he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility when he filed the complaint and later notified the court that he had been transferred to Upstate Correctional Facility.
On March 13, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It gave Chavis permission to file an amended complaint by May 13, 2020, limited to his claim that Dr. Yelena Korobkova and Dr. Edwin Uzu were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and instructed him on how to amend that claim.
Deadline and Court Orders
Because Chavis had not filed an amended complaint or requested more time, the court extended the deadline to September 14, 2020. The court warned that if he did not file an amended complaint or request another extension, it would treat the case as abandoned, direct entry of judgment for the defendants, and close the case.
The court also noted that a state inmate lookup showed Chavis had been transferred to Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Because he had not filed a change-of-address notice, the court updated the docket with the Great Meadow address and reminded him that he had to notify the court in writing of future address changes. The court mailed the relevant orders and an amended-complaint form to that address. Chavis did not file an amended complaint or request more time, and the court received no returned mail or other indication that he had not received the materials.
Ruling
The court concluded that Chavis had abandoned the case. Applying the factors identified in Lucas v. Miles, the court dismissed the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. “With prejudice” means the dismissal bars refiling the same case based on these claims.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Chavis permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.