Hickman v. The City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-07205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hickman v. The City of New York, Judge Woods dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Hickman failed to update his address or follow court orders.
The order affected Quandell Hickman by dismissing his complaint without prejudice and closing the case. It also ended the pending proceedings involving The City of New York, Deputy Shivraj, Deputy Morales, Deputy Carter, and Security C.O. McNiel.
What happened
In Hickman v. The City of New York, Quandell Hickman was representing himself and had been told to notify the court if his address changed. Court mail was returned, and Hickman did not respond to repeated orders asking for his current address.
The court dismissed Hickman’s complaint without prejudice for failing to pursue the case and failing to comply with several court orders. It also adjourned all hearings, ended all pending motions, and closed the case.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ruled that dismissal was warranted because Hickman had received repeated warnings and did not provide the required address information. The court found that a lesser penalty was not appropriate.
The detailed version
- Hickman v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-07205
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Quandell Hickman filed the action on September 3, 2020, while representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee. The Clerk of Court sent him instructions requiring written notice if his address changed and warning that the case could be dismissed if he failed to provide that notice.
Court mail sent to the address listed on the docket was returned without a forwarding address. The court reminded Hickman of his obligation to update his address and its authority to dismiss the case if he did not do so. On November 2, 2020, the court ordered Hickman to provide his current address by November 20, 2020, and warned that failure to respond would lead to dismissal for failure to pursue the case. Hickman did not respond to the court’s orders.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or comply with court rules or orders. The court explained that a district court may dismiss a case on its own for that reason. It also noted that dismissal may be imposed against a person representing himself when the person was warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods concluded that dismissal was warranted because Hickman received repeated warnings but still failed to provide his current address or comply with the court’s orders. The court considered whether a lesser penalty would be appropriate and concluded that it would not.
Accordingly, the court dismissed Hickman’s complaint without prejudice for failure to pursue the case and failure to comply with numerous court orders. The Clerk of Court was directed to send the order to Hickman by certified mail, adjourn all hearings, terminate all pending motions, and close the case.
Effect of the order
The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against the defendants. The ruling ended this case without prejudice based on Hickman’s failure to pursue it and comply with court orders.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.