Sun v. New York City Police Department

Background

Yi Sun brought the action representing herself against the New York City Police Department, the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York, Hugh H. Mo, The Law Firm of Hugh H. Mo, PC., Scott Richman, Threadtex Inc., John Doe 1, and John Doe 2.

In an August 6, 2020 order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, as to all of Yi Sun’s claims except a claim under Section 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations by unidentified officer defendants based on events occurring on January 20, 2019. The court also dismissed, under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, claims seeking review of Yi Sun’s state-court cases. The court held in abeyance state-law claims concerning the seizure aspect of the January 20, 2019 incident while efforts were made to identify the Doe defendants.

The court ordered the New York City Corporation Counsel to try to identify the Doe officers. After multiple extensions, Corporation Counsel identified four of the seven or eight officers Yi Sun sought to sue and provided service addresses. The court then issued summonses and directed Yi Sun to serve the newly identified defendants. The court warned that failure to serve them or request an extension could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court later determined that Corporation Counsel had fulfilled its obligation to pursue identification of the remaining Doe defendants.

Yi Sun did not file the required amended complaint by the extended deadline. The court gave her additional time, including a final 14-day extension that stated no further extensions would be granted absent good cause. Yi Sun still did not file an amended complaint, serve the newly identified defendants with an operative pleading, or explain her failure. She had not communicated with the court since March 1, 2021.

Reasoning

Rule 41(b) permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court considered the five factors used for this type of dismissal: the length and responsibility for the delay, notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to defendants, the balance between managing the court’s calendar and preserving a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would work.

The court found that the delay before Corporation Counsel identified four officers was not Yi Sun’s fault because the court had granted extensions for that identification process. But the court found that Yi Sun was responsible for the later delay because she did not file an amended complaint or serve the identified defendants. That delay was long enough to support dismissal.

The court also found that Yi Sun had received repeated notice that further delay could result in dismissal. The prejudice factor was neutral because the newly identified defendants had not been served with an operative complaint and had not yet undertaken efforts to defend the case. The court concluded that the remaining factors favored dismissal because Yi Sun had been given several opportunities to proceed and lesser sanctions would not be effective.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims that had not already been dismissed by the August 6, 2020 order, including the claims against the newly identified and Doe defendants. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not itself bar a later filing based on those claims, although the opinion does not address whether any later filing would be timely or otherwise permitted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, directed the clerk to enter judgment in accordance with both orders, and closed the case. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the memorandum order on July 9, 2021.