Harrigan v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-03489
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Harrigan v. City of New York, Judge Liman dismissed the case without prejudice because Harrigan did not prosecute it or respond to the court’s order.
Jahumi Harrigan’s case against the City of New York, Police Officer Darnell Jones, Detective Frankie Soler, and Sergeant Jose Perez was dismissed without prejudice and closed.
What happened
In Harrigan v. City of New York, Jahumi Harrigan sued the City of New York, Police Officer Darnell Jones, Detective Frankie Soler, and Sergeant Jose Perez. After the court allowed Harrigan to file a second amended complaint, Harrigan’s attorney withdrew, and the case remained inactive for more than two years.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution or, alternatively, because the complaint failed to state a claim. The court ordered Harrigan to explain why the case should not be dismissed, but Harrigan did not file a response by the deadline.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and closed the case. Judge Lewis J. Liman found that the extended delay, the notice Harrigan received, presumed prejudice to the defendants, and the ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions supported dismissal.
The detailed version
- Harrigan v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-03489
- Lewis Liman
- June 6, 2022
Background
Jahumi Harrigan filed the case on April 19, 2019, and later filed an amended complaint. The defendants—the City of New York, Police Officer Darnell Jones, Detective Frankie Soler, and Sergeant Jose Perez—moved to dismiss that complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). The court granted that motion on May 20, 2020, dismissed Harrigan’s claims without prejudice, and gave Harrigan 30 days to file another amended complaint. Harrigan filed a second amended complaint.
Harrigan’s attorney, Gary Fish, later sought to withdraw after Harrigan terminated him as counsel. The court granted the withdrawal motion on August 27, 2020. On April 19, 2021, the defendants moved under Rules 41 and 11 to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, or alternatively to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Court’s Analysis
On April 4, 2022, the court ordered Harrigan to file a letter by June 3 explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to state a claim. The court warned that not responding could result in dismissal. Harrigan did not file a response.
The court applied five factors used to evaluate dismissal for failure to prosecute: the length of the delay, whether the plaintiff received notice that continued delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the need to manage the court’s calendar while preserving the plaintiff’s opportunity to have the case heard, and whether lesser sanctions could work. The court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Harrigan had not prosecuted the case for more than two years, had received notice and another opportunity to respond, and had not responded. Although the record contained no specific evidence of prejudice, the court stated that prejudice from unreasonable delay may be presumed. The court also found that lesser sanctions would be ineffective.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the defendants’ motion, close the case, and mail a copy of the order to Harrigan. Judge Lewis J. Liman did not dismiss the case on the alternative ground that the complaint failed to state a claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.