Hafeez v. NYC DCAS
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-06151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hafeez Saheed v. Charles Parker, Judge Gardephe dismissed the claims without prejudice after Saheed failed to follow an order needed for default judgment.
Hafeez Saheed’s remaining employment discrimination claims against Charles Parker were dismissed; the case was closed.
What happened
Hafeez Saheed, representing himself, sued the New York City Department of Administrative Services and several people, including Charles Parker, in an employment discrimination case. Saheed later agreed to dismiss his claims against everyone except Parker.
After Saheed obtained a certificate showing Parker’s default, the court required Saheed to seek a default judgment. The court later ordered him to file proof that he had mailed the required papers to Parker, but Saheed did not comply after receiving a warning that his claim would be dismissed.
Judge Gardephe ruled that Saheed’s claims against Parker should be dismissed without prejudice for failing to prosecute the case and obey the court’s order. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Hafeez v. NYC DCAS · No. 1:17-cv-06151
- Paul Gardephe
- June 9, 2021
Background
Hafeez Saheed, a former employee of the New York City Department of Administrative Services, filed an employment discrimination action against the agency, its commissioner, and several agency employees, including Charles Parker. Saheed later agreed to dismiss his claims against all defendants except Parker.
Saheed obtained a certificate of default against Parker on April 25, 2019. A certificate of default records that a defendant had failed to respond as required. The court then ordered Saheed to seek a default judgment under the procedures in the court’s individual rules. Saheed filed an affidavit supporting an order to show cause for a default judgment and stated that the papers supporting the motion had to be mailed to Parker at his last known residence.
Failure to Prosecute
On December 2, 2020, the court directed Saheed to file proof that he had mailed the papers as required by Local Civil Rule 55.2(c). The court warned that it would dismiss Saheed’s claim against Parker for failure to prosecute if he did not file the proof by December 23, 2020. The order was mailed to Saheed, but he did not comply. The opinion also states that Saheed had not filed anything on the docket since March 2020.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may involuntarily dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the federal rules or a court order. The court considered five factors: the length of the failure, whether the plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the defendant from further delay, the balance between managing the court’s docket and giving the plaintiff a fair chance to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.
The court found that the factors favored dismissal. It determined that Saheed’s failure had lasted long enough to support dismissal, that he had received clear notice of the consequence, and that further delay could prejudice Parker. The court also found that it had protected Saheed’s opportunity to be heard by warning him and that lesser sanctions would be ineffective because Saheed had not responded to the court’s orders.
Ruling
Judge Paul G. Gardephe concluded that Saheed’s claims against Parker were properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court’s analysis states that the dismissal was without prejudice. The clerk of court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.