Edwards v. Annucci
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-05018
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Edwards v. Annucci, Judge Halpern ordered Edwards to explain why his excessive-force case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
William L. Edwards was required to respond by March 26, 2021, or the case would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The defendants remained parties to the action at the time of this order.
What happened
In Edwards v. Annucci, William L. Edwards, representing himself, sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and other defendants over alleged excessive force on June 26, 2014.
During discovery, the court directed Edwards to sign and return a form allowing defendants to obtain his medical records. Defendants said the form was delivered, but Edwards did not return it, respond to a court order, or participate in the case after an April 30, 2020 conference. A court mailing was returned as undeliverable.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered Edwards to explain in writing by March 26, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court stated that failing to respond would result in that dismissal; the opinion did not dismiss the case at that time.
The detailed version
- Edwards v. Annucci · No. 7:17-cv-05018
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
William L. Edwards, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought claims under federal civil-rights law and New York law against the State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and other defendants. The claims concerned the alleged use of excessive force against him on or about June 26, 2014.
The case was reassigned to Judge Philip M. Halpern on March 17, 2020, while discovery was ongoing. After an April 30, 2020 telephone conference, the court ordered defense counsel to send Edwards a new authorization for his medical records from Fishkill. After Edwards signed and returned it, counsel was to provide him with any existing correspondence exchanged in August or September 2014 between Edwards and the Office of Mental Health Unit Chief at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
Plaintiff’s lack of participation
Defense counsel reported that the authorization was sent on May 8, 2020. On July 3, 2020, counsel stated that Edwards said he had not received the form or his mental-health records. Counsel sent another authorization by UPS, and reported that it was delivered on July 24, 2020, but Edwards did not return it.
On October 14, 2020, the court noted that there had been no docket activity since July 3 and ordered the parties to file a joint status letter by October 23. Defense counsel filed a letter, but the opinion stated there was no indication that it was submitted for all parties. Edwards did not separately respond. The court also stated that Edwards appeared not to have participated in the action since the April 30 conference. The October 14 order mailed to him was returned on October 27 as undeliverable.
Court’s action
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it, meaning fails to move the case forward. The court may issue such a dismissal on its own initiative.
The court did not dismiss the case in this opinion. Instead, it ordered Edwards to show cause, in writing by March 26, 2021, why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The order stated that failure to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Edwards 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.