Megginson v. Morales
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-03815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Megginson v. Morales, Judge Vyskocil ordered Michael E. Megginson to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward.
Michael E. Megginson, the pro se plaintiff, was required to explain by November 28, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed or why a lesser sanction should not be imposed.
What happened
In Megginson v. Morales, Michael E. Megginson had been ordered to file an amended complaint after the New York City Law Department provided information about the defendants. The court said he had not filed the amended complaint or taken other action to prosecute the case.
The court ordered Megginson to file a letter by November 28, 2022, explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b), which allows dismissal for failing to prosecute a case or follow court orders. The court also directed him to explain why he should not receive a sanction instead of dismissal.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that Megginson was responsible for prosecuting his case and that the case could be dismissed if he continued not to comply. The clerk was directed to mail the order to him.
The detailed version
- Megginson v. Morales · No. 1:22-cv-03815
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 27, 2022
Background
Michael E. Megginson filed the complaint on May 10, 2022. On July 12, 2022, the court issued an order directing the New York City Law Department to identify and provide the names and addresses of the defendants. The order also directed Megginson to file an amended complaint within 30 days after receiving that information.
The Law Department filed a certificate of service on August 11, 2022. After Megginson informed the court that he had changed his address, the Law Department filed another certificate of service on September 21, 2022. The court stated that Megginson had not filed an amended complaint, taken any other action to prosecute the case, or requested additional time.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Megginson to file a letter by November 28, 2022, explaining why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule permits dismissal when a party fails to prosecute a case or comply with court orders. The court also required him to explain why he should not be sanctioned instead of receiving the harsher sanction of dismissal.
The court warned that Megginson was ultimately responsible for prosecuting the case and that the case could be dismissed for failing to comply with court orders and prosecute it. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Megginson at the address of record.
Disposition and Classification
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It ordered Megginson to explain why dismissal should not occur. This is a procedural order because it addressed failure to prosecute and compliance with court orders, not the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.