Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 11, 2022

Evans v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:21-cv-10378
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Evans v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Who this affects

Pauline Evans’s case was closed after the court dismissed it without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion lists New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. and Lincoln as defendants.

What happened

In Evans v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Pauline Evans filed a complaint and represented herself. The deadline to serve the defendants passed on March 6, 2022.

The court ordered Evans to explain by April 6 why the case should not be dismissed because she had not moved it forward. She did not respond or take other action after that order.

Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and directed the clerk to close it. This dismissal was based on Evans’s failure to prosecute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Evans v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-10378
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Apr. 11, 2022

Background

Pauline Evans filed the complaint on December 6, 2021, and proceeded without a lawyer. Service of process on the defendants was due on March 6, 2022.

Court’s Action

On March 23, 2022, the court ordered Evans to show cause—explain why the case should remain open—by April 6, 2022. The order warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Evans did not take the required step or otherwise make progress in the case after the order was issued.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent power. The clerk was directed to close the case. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not discuss any possible refiling requirements or limitations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.