Hickman v. The City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-07205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hickman v. City of New York, Judge Woods denied Hickman’s request to reopen his case after repeated failures to follow orders and attend conferences.
Quandell Hickman’s request to reopen his dismissed case was denied. The case remained dismissed without prejudice, and Hickman was denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal filing fee. The City of New York, Deputy Shivraj, Deputy Morales, Deputy Carter, and Security C.O. McNiel were the named defendants.
What happened
In Hickman v. The City of New York, the court had dismissed Quandell Hickman’s case without prejudice after he repeatedly failed to follow court orders and attend scheduled conferences. Hickman later asked the court to reopen the case, explaining that he had been homeless and had not received orders sent to his grandmother’s address after her death.
The court denied the request. It found that Hickman had been warned about his responsibilities, had already received another chance to litigate the case, and still failed to keep the court informed of his address and attend proceedings. Because the earlier dismissal was without prejudice, the court also noted that he could pursue any timely claims in a new action.
Judge Woods also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hickman permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The clerk was ordered to send Hickman the order by certified mail.
The detailed version
- Hickman v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-07205
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
Quandell Hickman, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, filed this action on September 3, 2020. The court ordered him to notify the court of any address changes. After the clerk was unable to serve him with multiple court orders, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the dismissal did not bar a new action based on timely claims.
Hickman later told the court that his address had been listed incorrectly and asked the court to vacate the dismissal. The court granted that request and reopened the case. After reopening, Hickman failed to comply with several court orders and did not attend conferences scheduled for March 8, March 15, May 10, and June 28, 2021. The court, defense counsel, and the court reporter appeared for those conferences, but Hickman did not. The court had warned him that continued noncompliance could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). After he failed to attend the June 28 conference, the court again dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
Request to Reopen
Hickman’s January 10, 2022 letter explained that he had been homeless and had not received orders sent to his grandmother’s house, where she had since died. The court treated the letter as a request for relief from the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment in specified circumstances, including another reason that justifies relief, but the court described this remedy as extraordinary and available only in exceptional circumstances.
Ruling
The court denied Hickman’s request to reopen the case. It acknowledged his circumstances and expressed condolences for his grandmother’s death, but found that he had been made aware of his duty to provide a current address and had already been given a second opportunity to litigate. The court concluded that he again failed to comply with court orders and attend court proceedings despite repeated warnings. The court also stated that the prior dismissal was without prejudice, so Hickman was not barred from pursuing any timely claims in a new action. Judge Gregory H. Woods therefore declined to reopen the case.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Hickman permission to proceed without paying the required fee for an appeal. The clerk was directed to send him a copy of the order by certified mail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.