Chen v. Mayorkas

Background

Changfu Chen, who represented himself, filed the complaint on January 5, 2023, against Alejandros Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Andrea Quarantillo. The defendants did not appear. The docket showed no activity after the complaint was filed.

On August 21, 2023, the court ordered Chen to show why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute—that is, for not moving the case forward. The deadline was September 18, 2023. Chen did not respond. The opinion also states that Chen appeared not to have served the defendants within the 90-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits a court to dismiss an action on its own for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. It considered the factors used in the Second Circuit, including the length of the delay, notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its calendar while preserving the plaintiff’s opportunity to have the case heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

The court found dismissal appropriate because Chen had not prosecuted the case for more than eight months and had not responded to the show-cause order. The court noted that there was no specific evidence that the delay had prejudiced the defendants, but stated that prejudice may be presumed from unreasonable delay. It also concluded that lesser sanctions would be futile because Chen had already been given an opportunity to proceed and had not done so.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.