Dickson v. Barnes

Background

Simone Dickson, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, filed this action against Department of Homeland Security Officer Barnes. The court understood her complaint to raise excessive-force and false-arrest claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Dickson initially filed the case in the Northern District of New York on May 2, 2022. That court transferred it to the Southern District of New York on May 11, 2022. The courts’ instructions told Dickson that she had to notify the court of any address change and warned that the case could be dismissed if she did not.

The Southern District scheduled an initial pretrial conference for February 28, 2023, later rescheduled to April 18, 2023. The notice required the parties to submit a joint letter one week before the conference. After the notice was returned as undeliverable, the court sent it again to two addresses and ordered Dickson to confirm or update her address without delay. Those mailings were also returned as undeliverable.

On April 11, 2023, the defendant’s lawyer reported that attempts to contact Dickson by mail, email, and telephone had been unsuccessful. Dickson did not appear at the April 18 conference. The court rescheduled the conference for May 4 and warned that her case could be dismissed if she failed to appear. Dickson again did not appear.

Legal standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with the rules or a court order. The court may do this on its own initiative. The court considered the relevant factors, including the length of the delay, notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice from further delay, the court’s need to manage its docket, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) also permits a court to issue sanctions when a party fails to appear at a scheduling or pretrial conference or fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. The sanctions available through that rule include dismissing the action. The court noted that these rules apply to people representing themselves as well as to parties represented by lawyers, provided that the person has been warned that noncompliance may lead to dismissal.

Court’s reasoning and ruling

The court found that dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) was warranted because Dickson had taken essentially no meaningful action in the case since May 2022. The court relied on her missed conferences, failure to communicate about the required joint letter, failure to update or confirm her address, and failure to otherwise engage in the case.

The court separately found that dismissal without prejudice under Rule 16(f) was warranted because Dickson had missed multiple conferences and failed to comply with multiple court orders. Although the court’s mailings had not reached her, the court concluded that this did not prevent dismissal because Dickson had repeatedly been told that she was responsible for notifying the court of address changes. The court also noted her lack of response to the government’s telephone and email attempts.

The court considered whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate and concluded that it would not be effective. It dismissed Dickson’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to appear, and failure to comply with court orders. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Dickson permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not decide whether Dickson’s excessive-force or false-arrest claims were legally valid.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The case was closed, and the pending motions were terminated.