Murray v. The City of Yonkers

Background

Latrell Murray brought this action against The City of Yonkers and other defendants. Discovery closed on June 2, 2021, and the case was ready for trial. At a July 12, 2021 conference, the court set deadlines for pretrial submissions and trial and directed Murray to promptly notify the court if his address changed.

The defendants submitted their portion of the required pretrial materials, but could not file a joint submission because Murray had not provided his portion. On August 17, 2021, the court directed defense counsel to make reasonable efforts to locate Murray and coordinate with him. Defense counsel later reported that Murray appeared to be at the Westchester County Jail and sent him another copy of the defendant’s submission. Counsel reported on September 24, 2021, that Murray had not responded.

The court’s orders sent to the address listed in the court’s electronic filing system were returned. The Clerk also mailed the September 27, 2021 order requiring Murray to explain in writing why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute to the Westchester County Jail. That mailing was not returned. Murray did not respond to the order or communicate with the court after the July 12 conference.

Rule 41(b) Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), together with a court’s inherent authority to manage its cases, permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court orders. The court applied the Second Circuit’s five-factor framework: the length of the plaintiff’s noncompliance, whether the plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the defendants, the balance between docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction was considered.

The court also recognized that dismissal is a harsh remedy and that courts should be especially cautious when the plaintiff is representing himself. It nevertheless stated that a self-represented plaintiff must pursue claims diligently, particularly after receiving a warning about dismissal.

Analysis

The court found the first factor satisfied because Murray failed to participate in court-ordered trial preparation and failed to respond to the order to show cause. He had not contributed to the joint pretrial submissions or communicated with the court for more than seven months.

The second factor favored dismissal because the court had repeatedly warned Murray to update his address and had specifically warned that failure to respond to the September 27, 2021 order could result in dismissal. The court found the delay inexcusable and stated that prejudice to the defendants could be presumed from the lengthy delay. It also found that Murray’s noncompliance interfered with the court’s management of its docket and that there was no reason to believe he intended to continue pursuing the action.

Finally, the court considered a less severe sanction and concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Murray appeared to have abandoned the litigation.

Disposition

The court found that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was appropriate and dismissed the action without prejudice. It directed the Clerk to terminate the action and mail a copy of the order to Murray at the address listed in the court’s records and at the Westchester County Jail address identified by the defendant.