Kruppenbacher v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00110
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kruppenbacher v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti dismissed the case with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to update his address or prosecute it.
Joseph Kruppenbacher’s case was dismissed with prejudice, ending the action based on his failure to update his address and comply with court orders. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
Kruppenbacher v. Annucci was brought by Joseph Kruppenbacher, who was representing himself and had been told to notify the court in writing whenever his address changed. The court mailed multiple orders and instructions explaining this responsibility after the docket showed different correctional-facility addresses.
Kruppenbacher did not respond to orders directing him to provide his current address, even after the court extended his deadline and warned that it would treat the case as abandoned. The court also noted that he had not opposed the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti dismissed the case with prejudice for failing to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Kruppenbacher v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-00110
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 6, 2022
Background
Joseph Kruppenbacher filed the action on January 2, 2020, while incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility. He proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that the November 2, 2021, order of service updated his docket address to Five Points Correctional Facility based on the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision inmate-lookup webpage. That order, along with an instructions pamphlet, told Kruppenbacher that he had to notify the court in writing of any address change and warned that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
The court’s April 12, 2022, order directed Kruppenbacher to provide his current address by May 12 and warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). After he did not respond, the court’s May 18 order extended the deadline to June 21 and again warned that the court would treat the case as abandoned and dismiss it if he failed to respond. The opinion also states that Kruppenbacher did not oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Kruppenbacher had still not updated his address. It concluded that he had abandoned the case and considered the factors identified in Lucas v. Miles for dismissing an action for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means failing to move a case forward. The court also relied on Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. “With prejudice” means the dismissal bars refiling the same case. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. It directed the Clerk to close the case and ordered that a copy be mailed to Kruppenbacher at the address on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.