King v. Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc.

Background

The court had previously allowed Victor King’s former counsel to withdraw and directed King, or new counsel, to tell the court whether King had found a new lawyer, wanted to proceed without a lawyer, or agreed to dismissal of the action without prejudice. No response was filed.

The court then issued three orders to show cause. Each required King to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court warned King that failing to comply with its orders could result in dismissal. King did not respond to any of the orders or otherwise pursue the action.

Legal Standard

Rule 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. The court considered five factors used by the Second Circuit: how long the plaintiff failed to act, whether the plaintiff was warned about dismissal, whether further delay would likely prejudice the defendant, the court’s interest in managing its docket compared with the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction might work.

Ruling

The court found dismissal appropriate. King had failed to respond to any court order or prosecute the action for nearly one year. He had received three warnings that further delay could lead to dismissal. The court also found that the case had been pending for nearly a year and a half, that the defendant was entitled to resolution, and that the court’s interest in managing its docket outweighed King’s interest in continuing to litigate. The court found no reason to believe a lesser sanction would change King’s conduct.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and requested that the Clerk of Court close the case. Although the orders to show cause discussed possible dismissal with prejudice, the final order states that the case was “DISMISSED for failure to prosecute” and does not separately state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.