Adzimah v. Ross
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-09574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Adzimah v. Ross, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case with prejudice because Adzimah failed to prosecute after repeated warnings and missed deadlines.
Joseph M. Adzimah’s case was dismissed with prejudice for failing to follow court orders and prosecute the action; the opinion did not reach the disability-discrimination claim’s merits.
What happened
Adzimah v. Ross involved Joseph M. Adzimah’s claim that his employer, the United States Census Bureau, discriminated against him because of a disability. Adzimah represented himself, and the defendant moved to dismiss his complaint for failing to state a claim.
The court repeatedly gave Adzimah more time to amend his complaint or respond to the motion. After he filed an amended complaint, the court set a deadline for his opposition to the new motion to dismiss. Adzimah did not respond or otherwise prosecute the case for months, despite warnings that the case could be dismissed.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The ruling ended the case based on Adzimah’s failure to follow court orders, not on a decision about whether the alleged disability discrimination occurred.
The detailed version
- Adzimah v. Ross · No. 1:19-cv-09574
- Vyskocil
- June 22, 2021
Background
Joseph M. Adzimah, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging that his employer, the United States Census Bureau, discriminated against him on the basis of a disability. Secretary Wilbur L. Ross, United States Department of Commerce, moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Procedural History
The court initially gave Adzimah until February 7, 2020, to file an amended complaint. It granted two requests for additional time, eventually setting March 27, 2020, as the deadline. After Adzimah did not file an amended complaint or take other action for nearly six months, the court ordered him to file an amended complaint or respond to the motion by October 14, 2020, and warned that failing to prosecute could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
The court granted another extension and again warned that it would not entertain another such request. Adzimah filed an amended complaint on October 30, 2020. The defendant then filed another motion to dismiss. The court ordered Adzimah to oppose that motion by January 19, 2021, and warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal. Adzimah did not file an opposition or otherwise take action to prosecute the case for months.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a district court has inherent authority to supervise its proceedings and sanction a litigant for disobeying court orders, including by dismissing a case. The court found that it had given Adzimah repeated opportunities and warnings, including specific warnings in three orders. It concluded that it could not keep the case on its docket while repeatedly directing Adzimah to take basic steps to move it forward.
Disposition
The court ordered that the case be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not decide whether Adzimah’s disability-discrimination allegations had merit or whether the amended complaint stated a claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.