Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 2, 2022

Ouyang v. Mayorkas

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-03523
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
ImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ouyang v. Mayorkas, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case for failure to prosecute, subject to timely restoration and possible dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Yanjun Ouyang’s action against Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur M. Jaddou, and Patricia Menges was discontinued for failure to prosecute, subject to the stated deadline for seeking restoration.

What happened

In Ouyang v. Mayorkas, Yanjun Ouyang filed a complaint on May 1, 2022, against federal immigration officials named in their official capacities. The court ordered Ouyang to serve the summons and complaint by September 1, 2022.

The court warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if service was not completed and Ouyang did not explain the failure. Ouyang filed no proof of service and took no other action to move the case forward.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if Ouyang applied by October 3, 2022. If no application was made by that date, the order stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ouyang v. Mayorkas · No. 1:22-cv-03523
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Sept. 2, 2022

Background

Yanjun Ouyang initiated the action on May 1, 2022, against Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur M. Jaddou, and Patricia Menges, each sued in an official capacity. The opinion identifies Mayorkas as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Jaddou as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Menges as Director of the USCIS New York City Asylum Office.

Failure to Prosecute

On August 2, 2022, the court ordered Ouyang to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants by September 1, 2022. The court warned that the complaint would be dismissed for failure to prosecute—meaning failure to take required steps to move the case forward—if service had not been made and Ouyang failed to show a reason for the failure. As of September 2, 2022, Ouyang had not filed proof of service or otherwise taken action to prosecute the case.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar. The order allowed an application to restore the action if made by October 3, 2022. It further stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying merits of Ouyang’s 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.