Jackson v. Tsoi 19014
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-09463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jackson v. Tsoi, Judge Daniels dismissed Jackson’s civil-rights case with prejudice after he failed to prosecute and participate in discovery.
The ruling ended Kennin Dwayne Jackson’s case against New York City Department of Correction Officer Tsoi. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the opinion did not resolve Jackson’s constitutional claims.
What happened
Kennin Dwayne Jackson, representing himself, sued New York City Department of Correction Officer Tsoi under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional violations while incarcerated. The court considered a recommendation to dismiss the case because Jackson had not pursued it or participated in discovery.
Jackson did not respond to an order requiring him to explain why the case should continue, and he did not attend the related hearing. He also failed to answer discovery requests, provide requested documents and information, or make his own required disclosures, despite communications from defense counsel.
Judge George B. Daniels reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, and dismissed Jackson’s complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Tsoi 19014 · No. 1:18-cv-09463
- George Daniels
- Apr. 13, 2021
Background
Kennin Dwayne Jackson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued New York City Department of Correction Officer Tsoi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jackson alleged that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated.
On September 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered Jackson to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to participate in discovery. Jackson did not file a response and did not appear at the show-cause hearing on October 16, 2020.
Magistrate Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation on October 20, 2020, recommending dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. No party filed objections.
Court’s Analysis
Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full.
Rule 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with a court order. The court considered the relevant factors, including the length of Jackson’s failure to comply, his notice that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, potential prejudice from further delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket, Jackson’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.
The court noted that Jackson had not responded to the show-cause order or attended the hearing. Since a case-management plan was entered on June 16, 2020, he had also failed to respond to discovery requests, document requests, and interrogatories from Tsoi’s counsel and had not made his own initial disclosures. Defense counsel had repeatedly attempted to communicate with Jackson about these obligations and had notified him that dismissal would be sought. The court also noted that mail sent to Jackson’s address of record had not been returned and that Jackson had confirmed by email that he knew the date and time of the show-cause hearing.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed Jackson’s complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Jackson a copy of the memorandum decision and order.
The dismissal was based on Jackson’s failure to pursue the case and comply with discovery obligations; the opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.