Wengui v. Tursun
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-02781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wengui v. Tursun, Judge Cronan ordered Plaintiff to explain whether he would proceed or face possible dismissal for failing to serve defendants and prosecute.
Guo Wengui and the named defendants, including Intizar Tursun, were affected by an order requiring Wengui to respond before the court could consider dismissal for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Wengui v. Tursun, Guo Wengui filed a complaint but did not file proof that any named defendant had been served more than six months later.
The court had ordered Wengui to explain why he missed the 90-day service deadline. He then said he would withdraw the case without prejudice, but he did not complete that process after the court directed him to the applicable rule.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered Wengui to state by December 14, 2020, whether he intended to continue and, if so, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case and warned that dismissal could follow without further notice.
The detailed version
- Wengui v. Tursun · No. 1:20-cv-02781
- John Cronan
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Guo Wengui filed the complaint on April 3, 2020. More than six months later, he had not filed proof that a summons or the complaint had been served on any named defendant.
On October 13, 2020, the court ordered Wengui to show cause—that is, explain—why he had not served the summons and complaint within the 90-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court warned that it would dismiss the case if he did not show good cause for the failure.
On October 27, 2020, Wengui sent a letter stating that he would “withdraw the instant action, without prejudice.” On October 28, the court directed him to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) if he wished to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice. Wengui took no further action during the following month.
Court’s Action
The court explained that Rule 41 allows dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. It ordered Wengui to tell the court by December 14, 2020, whether he intended to proceed. If he intended to proceed, he had to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Alternatively, he could voluntarily dismiss the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) by that date.
The order stated that if Wengui did not provide the required information and explanation by December 14, the court might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute without further notice. The order did not itself dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.