Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00972
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York, Judge Vyskocil ordered Michael Guest to provide a current address, warning dismissal could follow.
Michael Guest, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants in the action.
What happened
In Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York, defendants moved to dismiss Michael Guest’s complaint, but the court did not receive his response. The court had twice ordered Guest to respond or explain why the case should continue.
The court then learned that its latest order mailed to Guest had been returned. It ordered Guest to provide his current address by January 3, 2023.
Judge Vyskocil warned that the action may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute if Guest does not provide the address. The order did not dismiss the action.
The detailed version
- Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00972
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 2, 2022
Background
Michael Guest filed this action on February 2, 2022. On August 5, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Guest did not file an opposition, meaning a response to that motion.
Prior Orders
On September 22, 2022, the Court ordered Guest to file his opposition or a letter stating that he would not oppose the motion by October 13, 2022. The Court warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. After receiving no opposition or letter, the Court issued another order on October 27, 2022, requiring Guest to explain by November 17, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed. That order also warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal.
Court’s Action and Effect
On November 21, 2022, the Court received notice that the copy of its most recent order mailed to Guest had been returned to sender. The Court ordered Guest to provide his current address by January 3, 2023. It warned that the action may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute if he does not do so. The Court also requested that the Clerk mail a copy of the order to Guest at the address of record. The order did not itself dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.