Murray v. Bouck

Background

Robert Lee Murray, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action on January 11, 2019. The defendants—Jennifer Bouck, Ashley Johnson, Elvis Guerrero, and Marcellus Randolph, each identified in the caption as a parole officer or senior parole officer—filed an answer. The court entered a discovery plan, but the case later showed no activity.

Murray’s last filing was an August 15, 2019 letter notifying the court of a change of address. The defendants stated that they had received no communications from him since then despite multiple attempts to contact him. Murray did not respond to the court’s request for a status update, the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, or the court’s order directing him to explain why the case should not be dismissed.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a defendant to seek dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or orders. The court explained that dismissal for failure to prosecute is a severe remedy and should be used only in extreme situations, with particular caution when the plaintiff is representing himself.

The court considered the five factors used in the Second Circuit: the length of the delay, whether the plaintiff received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the balance between court-calendar concerns and the plaintiff’s opportunity to have the case heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

Ruling

The court found dismissal appropriate because Murray had been unresponsive for more than a year, had received multiple warnings, and had not responded even after the court’s order to show cause set a deadline of October 23, 2020. The court also noted that a party representing himself must keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It requested that the Clerk terminate docket entry 36 and close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.