Cintron v. Doe 1
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-01619
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cintron v. Weshner, Judge Abrams ordered a response to a pending motion and warned that silence could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Rafael Cintron, who was ordered to respond or request an extension, and Eric Weshner, whose motion remained pending.
What happened
In Cintron v. Weshner, Rafael Cintron, representing himself and without paying the filing fee, had not responded to Eric Weshner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered Cintron to respond by November 16, 2020, either by opposing the motion or by stating that he would not respond. The court also allowed Cintron to request another extension.
The court did not decide the pending motion. Judge Abrams warned that if Cintron did not respond or request an extension by the deadline, the court might dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Cintron v. Doe 1 · No. 1:18-cv-01619
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 16, 2020
Background
Rafael Cintron filed the action on February 21, 2018. The opinion states that Cintron was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. On July 1, 2020, Eric Weshner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court had previously extended Cintron’s deadline to respond to September 30, 2020, but had received no response.
Order
The court ordered Cintron to file, no later than November 16, 2020, either a response to Weshner’s motion or a letter stating that he did not intend to respond. If Cintron stated that he intended to continue the case but did not oppose the motion, the court said it would treat the motion as fully submitted for decision. The court cited appellate authority stating that failure to respond to a motion for judgment on the pleadings does not automatically justify dismissal if the pleadings themselves are sufficient.
Disposition
The court did not grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Ronnie Abrams warned that if Cintron did not respond to the order or request an extension by November 16, 2020, the court might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk was directed to mail the order to Cintron.
Classification basis
This was a procedural order addressing the next steps for a pending motion and warning about a possible dismissal. The court did not reach the merits of the claims or decide the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.