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 warned that continued missed court conferences could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Quandel Hickman was warned that continued failure to attend conferences or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal; the defendants and the case schedule were also affected by the rescheduled conference.
What happened
In Hickman v. The City of New York, the court had reopened the case at Quandel Hickman’s request and scheduled a conference to discuss how the case should proceed.
Hickman did not attend the scheduled conferences on March 8 or March 15, 2021, even after the court and others waited for him. The court scheduled another conference for March 29, 2021, and directed the parties to follow its instructions.
Judge Gregory H. Woods warned that if Hickman continued not to follow court orders, the court expected to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Hickman v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-07205
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
The court had reopened the case on February 17, 2021, at Quandel Hickman’s request. It scheduled a March 8 teleconference to discuss the next steps in the litigation. Hickman did not appear, and the court, defense counsel, and the court reporter waited 15 minutes before adjourning the conference and rescheduling it for March 15.
Hickman again did not appear at the March 15 conference. The court scheduled another teleconference for March 29, 2021, and instructed the parties to use the court’s conference line and follow the relevant emergency rules.
Warning About Dismissal
The court reminded Hickman that he had to comply with court orders. It stated that the Clerk had mailed the orders to the address listed on the docket and that the court had received no information indicating that Hickman had not received them.
The court warned that if Hickman continued to fail to comply with court orders, it expected to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). That rule allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or an order. The court also explained that a district court may dismiss a case on its own motion for failure to prosecute, even though the rule expressly describes a defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The order did not dismiss the case. It scheduled a further teleconference, warned of possible dismissal if noncompliance continued, and directed the Clerk to send Hickman a copy of the order by certified mail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.