Bailey v. City of New York

Background

Damond Bailey brought this action against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and unidentified New York City police officers. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. The case was filed on February 16, 2019, and later became inactive while Bailey searched for new counsel. His counsel formally withdrew in August 2020.

Failure to Prosecute

After counsel withdrew, Bailey did not respond to court orders warning that failure to meet deadlines or respond could result in dismissal. The defendants requested dismissal, and later moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute, but Bailey did not respond.

In January 2021, the court received correspondence and medical records from Bailey’s mother. The court placed those materials on the docket and investigated whether Bailey was competent to litigate and whether appointing a guardian ad litem—a person appointed to protect a party’s interests in the case—was appropriate. The court held hearings by videoconference in March and April 2021. It ultimately declined to hold a competency hearing or appoint a guardian ad litem after finding that doing so would be futile because Bailey or his mother could not retain counsel. The court explained that Bailey could continue without a lawyer if he wished.

Bailey initially indicated that he wanted to end the case, but he and his mother later wanted more time to discuss the matter. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, gave Bailey additional time to decide whether to continue without a lawyer or voluntarily dismiss the case, and ordered him to file a letter by May 12, 2021. Bailey did not file the letter. On May 20, 2021, the court issued a final warning and set a June 10 deadline. Bailey did not file the required letter by that deadline.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or orders. The court explained that it could issue such a dismissal on its own initiative. It considered five factors: the length of the delay, whether Bailey was warned, likely prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its docket compared with Bailey’s opportunity to have his case heard, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

The court found that Bailey’s inaction caused a nearly fifteen-month delay. It emphasized that Bailey had received repeated warnings, that the court had held several hearings and issued multiple orders, and that Bailey had not taken steps to prosecute the case. The court also considered Bailey’s status as a person without a lawyer but noted that such a party still must follow court orders and diligently pursue the case.

The court concluded that managing its docket outweighed keeping the inactive case open and that no lesser sanction appeared likely to resolve Bailey’s failure to cooperate. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice, rather than with prejudice, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Bailey and close the case.

Disposition

The action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not rule on the merits of Bailey’s underlying claims.