Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2020

Robinson v. US Dept. Justice US DEA

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-02361
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Robinson v. U.S. Dept. of Justice U.S. DEA, Judge Carter dismissed the matter without prejudice after plaintiffs failed to respond to an order to show cause.

Who this affects

Keisha Robinson and the minor plaintiff K.F.; the defendants were required to serve the dismissal order and file proof of service.

What happened

Robinson v. U.S. Dept. of Justice U.S. DEA involved Keisha Robinson’s claims for herself and K.F., a minor, against federal and state defendants and other named defendants.

The court had ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. It identified Robinson’s failure to prosecute and the minor plaintiffs’ lack of counsel as grounds for possible dismissal. The plaintiffs did not respond by the October 20, 2020 deadline.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the matter without prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and ordered the defendants to serve the order on the plaintiffs and file proof of service.

The detailed version

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

Case
Robinson v. US Dept. Justice US DEA · No. 1:19-cv-02361
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Oct. 27, 2020

Background

Keisha Robinson brought the matter on behalf of herself and K.F., a minor. The defendants included the U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the New York State Police, and John Doe defendants.

Order to Show Cause

On September 24, 2020, the court ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. As to Robinson, the court cited failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. As to the minor plaintiffs, the court stated that they were without counsel and relied on authority providing that claims brought for a minor who is not properly represented cannot be decided on their merits; if counsel is not secured or appointed, the complaint may be dismissed without prejudice.

The plaintiffs’ response was due October 20, 2020. The opinion states that they had not responded by the time of the order.

Ruling

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the matter without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The defendants were ordered to serve the order on the plaintiffs by mail and email and to file proof of service by November 4, 2020. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.

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.