Sturdivant v. City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-10539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sturdivant v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Sean J. Sturdivant stopped responding.
Sean J. Sturdivant's action against the City of New York and other defendants was dismissed without prejudice; no costs were imposed on any party.
What happened
Sean J. Sturdivant, representing himself, sued the City of New York and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims in detail.
The court ordered Sturdivant to help identify unidentified defendants and answer limited questions. He did not respond, did not update his address, and did not answer an order asking why the case should not be dismissed. That order was returned as undeliverable.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and without costs to any party. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Sturdivant at the address on record and close the case.
The detailed version
- Sturdivant v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10539
- Vyskocil
- July 14, 2023
Background
Sean J. Sturdivant, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action on December 8, 2022, against the City of New York and other defendants, including unidentified John Doe defendants. On January 31, 2023, the court ordered the City to determine the identities and badge numbers of those defendants and provide addresses where they could be served.
The court later ordered Sturdivant to respond to the City's limited interrogatories by June 1, 2023. He did not answer or otherwise respond. The City then told the court that, based on information and belief, Sturdivant had been released on parole from Queensboro Correctional Facility on May 9, 2023, but that it did not have his last known address or telephone number.
The court issued an order requiring Sturdivant to explain by June 30, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order warned that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and that failure to comply and proceed would result in dismissal. Sturdivant did not file the required letter, and the order was returned as undeliverable. The court also noted that it had previously told him to notify the court in writing if his contact information changed.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, without prejudice and without costs to any party. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling based on the dismissal itself. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Sturdivant at the address of record and close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.