Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 22, 2020

Lewis v. Annucci

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:16-cv-09757
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lewis v. Annucci, Judge Roman dismissed Michael Lewis’s civil-rights case without prejudice because he failed to prosecute it.

Who this affects

Michael Lewis’s case was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants were no longer required to litigate the action in this case.

What happened

In Lewis v. Annucci, Michael Lewis brought a civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer against the defendants. The court directed him to explain why the case should not be dismissed because he had not pursued it.

Lewis did not respond to that order. The court noted that he had taken little action since starting the case and had not communicated with the court since January 2019.

Judge Roman ruled that dismissal was warranted and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the case and take related administrative steps.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lewis v. Annucci · No. 7:16-cv-09757
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Oct. 22, 2020

Background

Michael Lewis brought this case without a lawyer against Comm. Annucci and other defendants, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court issued an order directing Lewis to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Lewis did not respond.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that, when considering dismissal for failure to prosecute, courts examine the length of the plaintiff’s delay, whether the plaintiff received notice that further delay could result in dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its calendar while preserving the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective. No single factor controls.

The court found that Lewis’s delays were significant, that he had not communicated with the court since January 2019, and that the defendants had been required to defend against the claims since the case began. After considering the relevant factors, the court determined that dismissal was warranted.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 27, terminate the action, serve Lewis with the order at his last known residence, and place proof of service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.