Hassan v. Correction Officer Jane Doe
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-08864
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hassan v. Correction Officer Jane Doe, Judge Nathan granted defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
Eslam Hassan and the defendants; the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and closed.
What happened
In Hassan v. Correction Officer Jane Doe, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because Eslam Hassan had not moved it forward. Hassan did not respond to the motion or the court’s later order requiring a response.
The court found that Hassan had not participated in the case for more than a year. Mail sent to his current and former addresses was returned, and he had not updated his address or otherwise contacted the court.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Hassan v. Correction Officer Jane Doe · No. 1:19-cv-08864
- Alison Nathan
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
On December 1, 2020, the defendants filed and served a motion asking the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Eslam Hassan’s opposition was due within 14 days. Because the court received no opposition, it ordered Hassan to respond by January 29, 2021, and warned that it would dismiss the action if he did not respond.
Court’s Analysis
Hassan did not respond to the motion or the court’s order. The opinion states that his last communication with the court appeared to have been on February 14, 2020. Mail sent to both his most recent address and his prior address was returned as undeliverable. Hassan had not updated his address or otherwise participated in the litigation for more than a year. Applying the factors identified in LeSane v. Hall’s Security Analyst, Inc., the court found dismissal for failure to prosecute appropriate.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail Hassan a copy of the order. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not address the merits of Hassan’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.