Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 22, 2022

El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:20-cv-00521
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage, Judge Woods took no action on Plaintiff’s letter because the case had been dismissed for failure to prosecute and noncompliance.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Prinyah Godiah Nmiaa Paynes El-Bey, whose letter received no action because the case had already been dismissed and whose permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied; the opinion does not state that the order changed the defendants’ position.

What happened

In El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage, the court received Plaintiff’s April 21, 2022 letter after the case had already been dismissed on March 11, 2022.

The earlier dismissal was based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case, including missing several court conferences and failing to meet discovery obligations. Because the case was closed, the court declined to take any action on the letter.

Judge Gregory H. Woods also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail this order and the earlier dismissal order to Ms. El Bey’s Florida and New York addresses by certified mail.

The detailed version

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

Case
El Bey v. Cubesmart Self Storage · No. 1:20-cv-00521
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Apr. 22, 2022

Background

The court received Plaintiff’s letter dated April 21, 2022. The opinion states that the court had dismissed the case on March 11, 2022, because Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case and failed to comply with court orders. The stated reasons included Plaintiff’s failure to appear at multiple court conferences and failure to meet discovery obligations.

Ruling

Because the case had already been dismissed, the court declined to take any action concerning Plaintiff’s letter. The order does not reconsider or change the earlier dismissal.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Plaintiff permission to proceed without paying the required filing fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to send this order and the earlier dismissal order to Ms. El Bey’s Florida and New York addresses by certified mail.

Effect

The order leaves the prior dismissal in place and takes no action on Plaintiff’s April 21 letter. It also denies fee-free status for an appeal from this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.