Lassiter v. NYC Dept. of Corrections Medical Depts.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-09561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lassiter v. NYC Dept. of Corrections Medical Depts., Judge Cronan set a deadline and warned that the case could be dismissed if Lassiter did not update his address.
Carrol Lassiter, who was representing himself, and the continued status of his case. The order also concerned service on NYC Health+Hospitals.
What happened
In Lassiter v. NYC Dept. of Corrections Medical Depts., the court said Carrol Lassiter had not responded to an order requiring him to explain his failure to serve NYC Health+Hospitals and provide a correct address. A mailed order was returned after Lassiter was discharged from the Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center, and he had not given the court a new address.
The court explained that a case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute when a plaintiff does not keep the court informed of a current address. The court also noted that information previously given to Lassiter warned that the case could be dismissed if he failed to report an address change.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, Judge John P. Cronan gave Lassiter until September 8, 2023, to appear and provide an updated address, warning that the case would otherwise be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Lassiter v. NYC Dept. of Corrections Medical Depts. · No. 1:22-cv-09561
- John Cronan
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
On July 5, 2023, the court ordered Plaintiff Carrol Lassiter to file a letter by July 19, 2023. The letter had to address whether there was a good reason for his failure to timely serve Defendant NYC Health+Hospitals and provide a correct address for that defendant. Lassiter did not file the letter.
On August 3, 2023, the court was informed that the mailed order had been returned because Lassiter had been discharged from the Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center and had not provided a new address. The court noted that the pro se information package previously given to Lassiter stated that he was responsible for reporting any address change and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not do so. The court also stated that it had not heard from Lassiter since the action was filed.
Legal standard
Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may dismiss an action on its own initiative for failure to prosecute after notifying the plaintiff. The court explained that courts in the district recognize failure to maintain a current address as a basis for failure to prosecute because the case cannot proceed without that information.
Order
The court did not dismiss the case at this time. It ordered that, if Lassiter did not appear and provide an updated address by September 8, 2023, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice. The opinion does not state what Lassiter did after this deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.