Vigo v. Mayorkas
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-02649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Vigo v. Mayorkas, Judge Swain ordered Vigo to provide a mailing address within 30 days or face dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Denroy Vigo must provide the court with a current mailing address within 30 days to avoid the possible dismissal described in the order. Alejandro Mayorkas is the respondent, and the case’s underlying request for release was not decided in this order.
What happened
In Vigo v. Mayorkas, Denroy Vigo asked for release from custody under a federal law that allows people to challenge detention. Records showed that he had been paroled to immigration authorities, but immigration records did not show that he was currently detained. Vigo also had not provided the court with a new address.
The court ordered Vigo to provide, within 30 days, an address where he could receive mail about the case. He could also agree to receive court documents electronically. The court warned that if he did not respond, it intended to dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the dismissal would be based on his failure to keep the court informed rather than on the merits of his release request.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not dismiss the case in this order. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Vigo v. Mayorkas · No. 1:22-cv-02649
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 14, 2023
Background
Denroy Vigo filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility pursuant to a 1988 Bronx County conviction. The petition sought his release. According to public records, Vigo was paroled to United States immigration authorities on July 11, 2023. Immigration detention records did not show that he was currently in immigration custody. Vigo had not notified the court of his new address, and the court stated that it was unclear whether the petition still presented a live issue.
Address requirement and possible dismissal
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal for failure to prosecute. Before taking that step, a court considers the duration of the plaintiff’s failures, whether the plaintiff was warned that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendant, the balance between court administration and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would work.
The court notified Vigo that he had to provide, within 30 days of the order’s date, an address where he could receive mail concerning the case. The court also provided an option to consent to electronic service. The order states that if Vigo failed to respond, the court intended to dismiss the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order therefore required Vigo to act but did not itself dismiss the case.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Vigo to provide a current mailing address within 30 days, warned that failure to respond could lead to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The order did not decide whether Vigo was entitled to release.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.