Jones v. Falco
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-03485
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jones v. Falco, Judge Briccetti ordered Jones to update his address by June 8 or face dismissal after repeated missed conferences.
Corderro Javon Jones, the self-represented plaintiff, was required to update his address; the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so. Lt. Falco and Sgt. Carr were the defendants.
What happened
In Jones v. Falco, self-represented plaintiff Corderro Javon Jones missed a scheduled case-management conference for the third time in several months. The court had ordered him to explain why he missed it and why the case should not be dismissed, but he provided only medical and employment documents concerning his illness.
The court also noted that Jones had not updated his address after it changed, despite repeated warnings. The order gave him until June 8, 2023, to provide his current address in writing. It did not dismiss the case at that time; it warned that failing to update the address would lead to dismissal for failing to pursue the case or follow court orders. The court also denied fee-free appeal status for this order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued the order and directed the Clerk’s Office to mail it to Jones at the address on the docket and at two possible addresses listed in the order.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Falco · No. 7:20-cv-03485
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 25, 2023
Background
Corderro Javon Jones was proceeding without a lawyer. He failed to appear at an April 19, 2023, case-management conference. The court stated that this was the third time in several months that Jones had missed a scheduled case-management conference.
In an April 19 order, the court directed Jones to explain in writing by May 3 why he had missed the conference and why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and comply with court orders. The court warned that failure to explain would be treated as abandonment and could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal for failure to prosecute or follow court orders.
Address and Explanation
On April 28, Clerk’s Office staff told the court that Jones had come to the Clerk’s Office believing he had a conference that day. Staff told him that no conference was scheduled and that he had missed the April 19 conference. Jones said he had not received court orders because his address had changed. Staff gave him a copy of the April 19 order and a change-of-address form, but the opinion states that Jones refused to submit the form.
On May 3, Jones filed documents from his employer and a doctor indicating that he had been sick on April 19. The medical documents listed an address different from the address on the docket. The opinion also states that the listed street name did not appear in Google Maps, although two similar street names did. Apart from the medical documents, Jones did not provide an explanation for missing the conference or for why the case should not be dismissed.
The court further stated that Jones had repeatedly been advised of his obligation to provide an updated address but had not done so in writing.
Order and Disposition
The court ordered Jones to update his current address in writing by June 8, 2023. It warned that if he failed to do so, the court would deem the case abandoned and dismiss it for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail the order to the address on the docket and to two additional addresses listed in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.