Jones v. Orange County Jail
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-05288
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jones v. Orange County Jail, Judge Halpern ordered Willie Earl Jones, Jr. to explain by December 14, 2020 why his case should not be dismissed for inactivity.
Willie Earl Jones, Jr., whose case was placed at risk of dismissal unless he explained by December 14, 2020 why it should remain pending; J. Cimorelli was the defendant.
What happened
Jones v. Orange County Jail concerns Willie Earl Jones, Jr.’s claim that correctional officer J. Cimorelli injured him while he was detained at the Orange County Jail. Jones was representing himself and was not required to pay court fees.
Jones asked to amend his complaint, but he did not file the amended complaint by the court’s deadline. After his release, he also did not update his address or attend a scheduled medical examination.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered Jones to explain in writing by December 14, 2020 why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to prosecute it. The order warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute; it did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Orange County Jail · No. 7:19-cv-05288
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 16, 2020
Background
Willie Earl Jones, Jr. sued correctional officer J. Cimorelli, alleging that Cimorelli injured him while Jones was detained at the Orange County Jail. Jones was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. Cimorelli answered the complaint on September 17, 2019.
Jones later requested permission to file an amended complaint. On August 28, 2020, the court granted that request and set an October 1, 2020 deadline. Jones did not file an amended complaint or request an extension.
Cimorelli informed the court that Jones had been released from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision on September 23, 2020. Cimorelli also reported that Jones did not appear for a medical examination scheduled for October 27, 2020. The opinion states that the examination demand had been delivered to Jones at the correctional facility before his release. Jones did not notify the court of a new address after his release, despite earlier orders stating that a failure to update his address could lead to dismissal.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district judge to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute it. The court found that Jones had failed to meet the deadline for amending his complaint, failed to attend the medical examination, and failed to provide a new address. The court stated that these failures impeded the orderly and timely handling of the case and could indicate that Jones intended to abandon it. The court acknowledged Jones’s status as a self-represented litigant.
Order
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered Jones to show cause in writing by December 14, 2020 why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court warned that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order itself was an order to explain, not a final dismissal of the case. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Jones at the address listed on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.