Ford v. Aramark

Background

Kavon Ford, representing himself, brought the action against Aramark, Kevin Cheverko, and Westchester County, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1997e. In a January 23, 2020 Opinion and Order, the court dismissed all claims except a conditions-of-confinement claim concerning cold temperatures against Westchester County.

The case was referred to magistrate judges for discovery. After discovery was completed, the court scheduled a telephone status conference for March 26, 2021, but Ford did not appear. The conference was rescheduled for April 23, 2021, and Ford again did not appear. On May 10, 2021, the court ordered Ford to show cause—meaning to explain—at a June 18 hearing why the action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Ford did not appear at the June 18 hearing and did not otherwise respond to the order. Defense counsel stated that she had not received correspondence from Ford about the hearing or the two earlier status conferences.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district judge to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it. The court explained that, in deciding whether to dismiss, it should consider the length of the plaintiff’s failures, whether the plaintiff was warned that continued delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant, the need to manage the court’s docket while protecting due process, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

The court found that Ford had failed to attend the three most recent proceedings and had not communicated with the court or Westchester County for several months. The court also found that Ford had specifically been directed to attend the June 18 hearing so he could explain why the case should not be dismissed, but he neither appeared nor responded.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed Ford’s remaining claim, without prejudice, under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Ford and record service.

Note on the case name

Although the supplied metadata calls the matter “Ford v. Aramark,” the opinion’s caption identifies the case as “Kavon Ford v. Westchester County,” and the order addresses Westchester County as the defendant. This summary follows the caption in the opinion.