Megginson v. Morales
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-03815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Megginson v. Morales, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case because pro se plaintiff Michael E. Megginson failed to prosecute after repeated court orders.
Michael E. Megginson, the self-represented plaintiff, and the defendants in the action were affected; the case was discontinued for failure to prosecute without costs to any party.
What happened
Michael E. Megginson filed this case and was representing himself. The court directed the New York City Law Department to identify the defendants and directed Megginson to file an amended complaint after receiving that information. The Law Department filed service certificates, but Megginson did not file an amended complaint or otherwise move the case forward.
The court then ordered Megginson to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute. He did not respond. The court later issued another order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or obey court orders. He still did not respond or take action.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Megginson v. Morales · No. 1:22-cv-03815
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 3, 2023
Background
Michael E. Megginson, proceeding without a lawyer, 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 reported a change of address, the Law Department filed another certificate of service on September 21, 2022. Megginson did not file an amended complaint or take other action to prosecute the case.
Failure to Prosecute
On October 27, 2022, the court ordered Megginson to file a letter explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court warned that he was responsible for prosecuting his case and that dismissal could result from failing to comply with court orders and prosecute the action. Megginson did not respond.
On January 9, 2023, the court issued an order requiring Megginson to explain by March 9, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That order warned that failing to comply and prosecute the case would result in dismissal. No response was filed, and Megginson took no action.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil cited Second Circuit authority concerning dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order resolved the case on that procedural ground and did not address the merits of Megginson's claims. The Clerk of Court was asked to mail the order to Megginson at the address of record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.