Harris v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Harris v. The City of New York, Judge Broderick ordered pro se plaintiffs to file a status letter and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The four plaintiffs—Yusef A. Harris, Ishmael C. Harris, Gregory S. Harris, and Oral R. Sinclar—were required to file a status letter by January 15, 2024. The order also concerns any claims the plaintiffs may seek to bring on behalf of the Harris Brothers.
What happened
In Harris v. The City of New York, four plaintiffs had been ordered to report on their progress locating a lawyer and prosecuting the case. They did not file the required letter by the December 11, 2023 deadline.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a new letter by January 15, 2024. The letter must say whether they found a lawyer to bring any claims for the Harris Brothers that the plaintiffs cannot properly bring themselves.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to follow the new order could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). He also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and the earlier order to the plaintiffs’ last known address.
The detailed version
- Harris v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-06344
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 12, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs are Yusef A. Harris, Ishmael C. Harris, Gregory S. Harris, and Oral R. Sinclar. The opinion states that they are proceeding without lawyers. On October 12, 2023, the court directed them to file a status letter by December 11, 2023, describing their progress in locating an attorney and otherwise prosecuting the action. The plaintiffs had not filed that letter by the date of this order.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter by January 15, 2024. The letter must indicate whether they have been able to locate counsel to bring any claims on behalf of the Harris Brothers that the plaintiffs may not permissibly bring in their own right.
Warning and Other Direction
The court warned that failure to comply with the order will result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail this order and the earlier order identified as Document 9 to the plaintiffs at their last known address. This order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.