Ashley v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-03888
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anthony Ashley v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Aaron extended NYCHA’s response deadline and warned that nonappearance could lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Anthony Ashley, Defendant NYCHA, the City of New York, and the other defendants are affected. NYCHA received more time to respond, and Ashley was ordered to attend the March 5, 2021 telephone conference and warned that nonappearance could lead to a recommendation for dismissal without prejudice.
What happened
Anthony Ashley sued the City of New York and others. After a telephone conference attended only by defendants, the court extended the deadline for Defendant NYCHA to respond to the complaint until January 22, 2021.
The court stated that Ashley appeared not to have received mailed filings and that defendants had been unable to contact him by telephone or email. It reminded him that he must follow court orders, pursue his case, and inform the court and defendants of address changes.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on March 5, 2021, and said he would recommend that District Judge Swain dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute if Ashley did not appear. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Ashley.
The detailed version
- Ashley v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-03888
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 5, 2021
Background
The opinion is an order issued after a telephone conference in which only the defendants appeared. The case was brought by Anthony Ashley against the City of New York and others. The order states that Ashley apparently had not received filings mailed to him at the Fort Washington Shelter or at The Hotel At New York City. Counsel for the City reported efforts to reach Ashley by the telephone number and email address listed in the case, without receiving a response.
Orders
The court extended Defendant NYCHA’s deadline to respond to the complaint until January 22, 2021. It also directed the parties to appear for a telephone conference on March 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.
The court explained that a self-represented plaintiff must comply with court orders, diligently pursue the case, and notify the court and defendants of address changes. It stated that failing to do so can support dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it stated that if Ashley failed to appear at the March 5 conference, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron would recommend to District Judge Laura Swain that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Ashley.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed scheduling, communication, and the possible future dismissal for failure to prosecute, rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.