Jones v. Falco
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-03485
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jones v. Falco, Judge Briccetti scheduled a conference and warned that another unexplained absence could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Corderro Javon Jones, who was representing himself, was required to attend the April 19, 2023, conference or request an adjournment in writing. Lt. Falco and Sgt. Carr's counsel was directed to contact Jones and report those efforts.
What happened
Corderro Javon Jones sued Lt. Falco and Sgt. Carr. Jones was representing himself and did not attend a March 28, 2023, conference, without giving an excuse or explanation. Defense counsel attended.
The court scheduled another case management conference for April 19, 2023, at the White Plains courthouse. Jones had also missed a December 13, 2022, conference. The court instructed him to request an adjournment in writing by April 14 if he could not attend, and directed defense counsel to contact him and report those efforts.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti warned that if Jones again failed to attend without an excuse or explanation, the court would treat that failure as abandonment and dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The order did not dismiss the case. The court also denied Jones permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Falco · No. 7:20-cv-03485
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 28, 2023
What the Order Did
This was a case-management order. The court scheduled a case management conference for April 19, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 620 of the White Plains courthouse.
Attendance and Warning
The order states that Jones was proceeding without a lawyer and failed to appear at the March 28 conference without an excuse or explanation. It also states that he had failed to appear at an earlier conference on December 13, 2022, despite court orders requiring his attendance.
The court warned that if Jones failed to appear at the April 19 conference, either personally or through a lawyer, without an excuse or explanation, the court would deem that failure an abandonment of the case and would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not impose that dismissal; it stated that dismissal could follow a future failure to appear.
If Jones could not attend, the court required him to submit a written request for an adjournment by April 14, 2023. The court also directed defense counsel to contact Jones about the conference by April 17 and file a letter describing those efforts. Jones was instructed to notify the court in writing of any address change.
Appeal-Filing-Fee Determination
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the required filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The court entered scheduling and compliance directives, warned of possible dismissal under Rule 41(b), and denied appeal-related permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.