Kerroll of the Family Barnes Aggrieved Party v. 42 U.S.C. 654 Alone
Kerroll of the Family Barnes Aggrieved Party v. 42 U.S.C. 654(3) Alone, Separate and Apart Division of Child Support Services
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-01884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kerroll of the Family Barnes Aggrieved Party v. 42 U.S.C. 654(3) Division, Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The plaintiff’s action was dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order to explain why the case should continue. The opinion does not describe any additional effect on the defendants.
What happened
Kerroll of the Family Barnes Aggrieved Party sued 42 U.S.C. 654(3) Separate and Apart Division of Child Support Services and other defendants in the Southern District of New York.
The court had ordered the plaintiff to explain by September 14, 2020 why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward. The plaintiff did not make that 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
- Kerroll of the Family Barnes Aggrieved Party v. 42 U.S.C. 654 Alone · No. 1:19-cv-01884
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
The plaintiff brought this action against 42 U.S.C. 654(3) Separate and Apart Division of Child Support Services and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
On July 14, 2020, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause—that is, to explain—by September 14, 2020 why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means failing to move a case forward. The plaintiff 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). The opinion does not address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. The court’s order does not state any further restrictions on refiling.
Effect
The dismissal ended this action, but because it was without prejudice, the order did not bar refiling. The opinion does not describe any other effect on the parties.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.