Cannon v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00837
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cannon v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Chief Judge Swain ordered Cannon to provide an address or consent to electronic service within 30 days.
Joseph Sherod Cannon was required to provide a current mailing address or consent to electronic service so the case could proceed. The court and the defendants were affected because they needed a way to serve documents.
What happened
In Cannon v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Joseph Sherod Cannon’s court mail was returned after public records indicated he had been released from custody. He had not provided a new mailing address or agreed to electronic service.
The court ordered Cannon to notify the court within 30 days of his current mailing address or consent to receiving documents by email. The order did not dismiss the case at that time.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that failure to comply would lead to dismissal of the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b), meaning Cannon could refile it. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Cannon v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:23-cv-00837
- Laura Swain
- May 9, 2023
Background
Joseph Sherod Cannon filed this action while he was at Great Meadow Correctional Facility and in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. In an earlier order, the court decided that Cannon was not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying filing fees as a prisoner and indicated that it would grant his request to proceed without paying those fees in a separate order.
That separate order was returned as undeliverable on April 25, 2023. Public records indicated that Cannon had been released from custody. Cannon had not provided the court with a new address for receiving mail, consented to electronic service, or made any further written submissions.
Order
The court stated that Cannon was responsible for providing an address where court documents could be served and that the action could not proceed if the court and defendants could not serve him. It directed Cannon, within 30 days of the order, to provide his current mailing address or complete and return the attached form consenting to electronic service by email. Any response had to be sent to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and identify docket number 23-CV-0837 (LTS).
The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. It stated that, if Cannon failed to comply within the allowed time, it would dismiss the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition and classification
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued a procedural order requiring Cannon to provide service information or consent to electronic service. The threatened dismissal was expressly described as without prejudice, but no dismissal had yet occurred. The order is classified as a procedural order because it addressed service and case administration without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.