Rosado v. Lee County State Attorney
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-00360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Michelle Rosado v. Robert Nichols, Judge Roman dismissed the action with prejudice because Rosado failed to prosecute it.
Michelle Rosado’s action was dismissed with prejudice, ending the case against Robert Nichols and the other defendants.
What happened
Michelle Rosado sued Robert Nichols and other defendants in Michelle Rosado v. Robert Nichols, et al. The court later ordered Rosado to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice because she had not prosecuted it.
The court said Rosado had done very little to move the case forward, had not communicated with the defendants or the court, had not participated in discovery, and had not answered the court’s order. Rosado had also filed motions seeking to withdraw the action.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and send Rosado a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Rosado v. Lee County State Attorney · No. 7:17-cv-00360
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
Michelle Rosado brought the action against Robert Nichols and other defendants on or about January 18, 2017. The court issued an order requiring Rosado to show cause by February 26, 2021, why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Rosado did not respond.
The court found that, during the litigation, Rosado had done very little to prosecute the case, had been uncommunicative with the defendants and the court, had not engaged in discovery, and had not responded to the order to show cause. The court also noted that Rosado had filed motions on February 10, 2021, asking to withdraw the action.
Rule and analysis
The court applied the factors used for a Rule 41(b) dismissal: the duration of the plaintiff’s delay, notice that continued delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the balance between court-calendar concerns and the plaintiff’s opportunity to have the case heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective. No single factor was described as determinative.
The court concluded that dismissal was warranted. It specifically stated that Rosado’s delays during discovery had lasted approximately eighteen months and that she had affirmatively moved to dismiss the action.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action and serve Rosado with the order at her last known residence, with proof of service placed on the docket. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.