Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-04373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State, Judge Halpern ordered Felix Urgiles to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to prosecute.
Felix Urgiles and the unidentified correctional and medical defendants. Urgiles was required to respond by November 13, 2020, or the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State, Felix Urgiles sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and unidentified correctional and medical personnel. The court had already dismissed the claims against the Department and directed officials to help identify the unidentified defendants.
The Attorney General reported that it could not identify those defendants. The court then ordered Urgiles to file an amended complaint with more identifying information, but he did not do so or provide other descriptive information.
Judge Halpern ordered Urgiles to explain in writing by November 13, 2020, why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to prosecute and comply with court orders. The order stated that failing to respond would result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
The detailed version
- Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State · No. 7:20-cv-04373
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
Felix Urgiles, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought this action against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and unidentified correctional officers, nurses, and a doctor. On June 24, 2020, the court dismissed Urgiles's claims against the Department and directed the New York State Attorney General to identify the unidentified defendants so they could be served.
The Attorney General later reported that it could not identify them. On August 25, 2020, the court ordered Urgiles to file an amended complaint providing the information described in the Attorney General's letter. The court warned that the action could be dismissed if he did not provide information sufficient to help identify the defendants. Urgiles did not file an amended complaint or provide additional descriptive information.
Court's Action
The court invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a judge to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with court orders. The court issued an order requiring Urgiles to show cause—that is, explain in writing—by November 13, 2020, why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. The order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the case for want of prosecution. This order itself required a response; it did not state that the case had already been dismissed. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Urgiles.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.