Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 11, 2022

Vega v. Department of Corrections

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-07262
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Vega v. City of New York: Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action without prejudice after Vega failed to provide his current address.

Who this affects

Justin Vega's action against the City of New York and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice because he failed to provide a current address or otherwise prosecute the case.

What happened

In Justin Vega v. City of New York, et al., Vega filed a lawsuit and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. The court told him to notify it if his address changed.

After Vega was released from state custody, defendants reported that he had not provided a current address. The court ordered Vega to provide one by September 30, 2022, but the order was returned as undeliverable and Vega did not respond.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the dismissal did not bar a new filing. The court also closed the case and terminated the motion listed at ECF No. 26.

The detailed version

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

Case
Vega v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:21-cv-07262
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Oct. 11, 2022

Background

Justin Vega filed the action on August 27, 2021. On September 9, 2021, the court granted his request to proceed without prepaying court fees and directed him to promptly notify the court if his address changed. The court warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

On July 8, 2022, defendants informed the court that Vega had been released from state custody on or about March 31, 2022, and had not provided the court or defendants with his current address. On August 31, 2022, the court ordered Vega to provide his current address by September 30, 2022. The court warned that the action could be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order mailed to Vega was returned to the court, and he had not provided a current address.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or a court order. The court also noted that it may take this action on its own.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar a new filing. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Vega at the address of record, terminate the motion at ECF No. 26, and mark the case closed.

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.