Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2022

McGinnis v. Orange County Jail

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-03335
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In McGinnis v. Orange County, Judge Briccetti dismissed the case with prejudice after McGinnis failed to update his address or follow court orders.

Who this affects

Jermaine McGinnis and the defendants named in the case: Orange County, Correction Officer Bandes, Correction Officer M. Carter, Correction Officer Donahough, and Correction Officer D. Powel.

What happened

McGinnis v. Orange County was brought by Jermaine McGinnis while he was incarcerated and representing himself without a lawyer. The case named Orange County and several correction officers as defendants.

Court mail sent to McGinnis was returned, so the court ordered him to provide his current address in writing. After he did not respond, the court extended the deadline and again warned that the case could be dismissed if he failed to comply.

McGinnis still did not update his address, and Judge Vincent L. Briccetti concluded that he had abandoned the case. The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders and denied special permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
McGinnis v. Orange County Jail · No. 7:22-cv-03335
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Nov. 17, 2022

Background

Jermaine McGinnis, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action on April 22, 2022. The defendants named in the caption were Orange County; Correction Officer Bandes, Badge #105 or #106; Correction Officer M. Carter, Badge #339; Correction Officer Donahough; and Correction Officer D. Powel.

Orange County and two correction officers filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied that motion without prejudice and stated that it would set a deadline for all defendants to respond after all defendants had been served. Counsel later appeared for Correction Officer D. Powles and Correction Officer M. Carter.

Address-update orders

Beginning in August 2022, court mail sent to McGinnis at the address listed in the complaint was returned as undeliverable. On August 23, 2022, the court ordered McGinnis to provide his current address in writing by September 23, 2022. The court warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to comply with court orders or failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.

The August 23 order was also returned as undeliverable. On October 3, 2022, the court extended the deadline to November 3, 2022, and again warned that it would dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if McGinnis did not provide his address.

Ruling

McGinnis did not update his address in writing and therefore did not comply with either order. After considering the factors identified in Lucas v. Miles, the court concluded that McGinnis had abandoned the case. Judge Briccetti dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders under Rule 41(b).

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to pursue an appeal without paying filing fees and directed the clerk to close the case.

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.