Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 31, 2022

Cano v. United States of America/Corporate America

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-09165
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Cano v. United States, Judge Swain ordered the self-represented plaintiff to update his address within 30 days or face dismissal without prejudice.

Who this affects

Christopher Hiram Cano, whose lawsuit was placed at risk of dismissal if he did not update his address within 30 days; the order also denied fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

In Cano v. United States of America/Corporate America, et al., Christopher Hiram Cano filed a lawsuit while detained and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court mailed him an order requiring a signed prisoner authorization, but the mail was returned, and he did not provide a new address or contact the court.

The court ordered Cano to update his address within 30 days. It stated that if he failed to comply, it would dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the lawsuit in this order.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied fee-free status for any appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Cano’s underlying rights claims were valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cano v. United States of America/Corporate America · No. 1:21-cv-09165
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 31, 2022

Background

Christopher Hiram Cano, appearing without a lawyer and seeking permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, brought an action asserting that the defendants violated his rights. When he filed the complaint, he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.

On April 5, 2022, the court directed Cano to submit a completed and signed prisoner authorization. The Clerk’s Office mailed that order to him the next day, but the envelope was returned to the court on April 26, 2022, marked “Inmate DISC xSH 3/30.” Cano had not notified the court of a new mailing address and had not contacted the court further. The opinion states that a Department of Correction inmate lookup showed he was released to a state hospital on August 4, 2022.

Court’s order

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute after notifying the plaintiff. It directed Cano to update his address within 30 days of the order. The court stated that if he failed to comply, it would dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the action in this order.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Cano’s underlying claims.

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.