Rodgers v. City of Yonkers

Background

Prince Rodgers represented himself in this action. The parties consented to Paul E. Davison’s jurisdiction for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Rodgers appeared at conferences on May 21, July 20, September 10, and October 9, 2020.

Rodgers failed to appear at a scheduled telephone conference on August 26, 2020. Court staff left a voicemail at the phone number Rodgers had verified, but he did not respond. The court then issued an order requiring him to attend another conference and explain his absence, warning that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Rodgers appeared at the September 10 conference and said he had missed the earlier conference because he was at work and could not answer the phone. He also said he had forgotten about the conference and assured the court that he would not miss another one.

Rodgers later failed to appear at the November 12 conference. Court staff again left a voicemail with call-in instructions, without receiving a response. The court issued another order requiring Rodgers to attend a December 11 conference and explain his absence, again warning that dismissal could result. Rodgers failed to appear on December 11, and court staff left another voicemail. He had not responded as of 4:00 p.m.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case diligently or fails to follow a court order. The court considered five factors identified by the Second Circuit: the length of the plaintiff’s failures, whether the plaintiff was warned that further delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendants, whether the court balanced case-management concerns with the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

Ruling

Judge Davison granted the defendants’ oral motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The court concluded that Rodgers had not communicated with the court, participated in conferences, or taken steps to pursue the case for two months, and that this was not his first failure to appear. The court found that Rodgers had received notice of the possible consequences, that the defendants had incurred expenses while defending a case Rodgers appeared unwilling to pursue, and that prejudice could fairly be presumed.

The court also concluded that it had already given Rodgers an additional opportunity to proceed by issuing the November 12 order instead of dismissing the action earlier. Because Rodgers ignored two orders and their warnings, the court found no reason to believe a lesser sanction would make him pursue the case. The action was dismissed under Rule 41(b). The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.