Hickman v. The City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-07205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hickman v. The City of New York, Judge Woods scheduled another conference after Hickman missed one and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Quandell Hickman and the defendants in the case were affected by the new conference schedule and compliance warning; the order did not decide the claims.
What happened
Hickman v. The City of New York had been reopened at Quandell Hickman’s request, and the court scheduled a March 8, 2021 telephone conference about the case’s next steps.
Hickman did not join that conference, even though the court, defense counsel, and the court reporter waited 15 minutes. The court then scheduled another conference for March 15, 2021.
Judge Gregory H. Woods reminded Hickman that he must follow court orders and warned that failing to pursue the case or comply with an order could allow a defendant to seek dismissal. The order did not dismiss the case or decide its underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Hickman v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-07205
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
On February 17, 2021, the court reopened the case at Quandell Hickman’s request. It scheduled a telephone conference for March 8, 2021, to discuss how the parties should proceed. Hickman did not appear on the conference line. The court, defense counsel, and the court reporter waited 15 minutes before ending the conference.
Order
The court scheduled a new telephone conference for March 15, 2021, and directed the parties to follow the court’s emergency rules related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also directed the Clerk of Court to send Hickman a copy of the order by certified mail.
Warning and effect
Judge Gregory H. Woods reminded Hickman that he must comply with the court’s orders. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court warned that a defendant may seek dismissal if a plaintiff fails to pursue the case or comply with court rules or an order. The order itself did not dismiss the action, rule on a motion to dismiss, or decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.