Harris v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. The City of New York, Judge Broderick ordered plaintiffs to clarify their claims 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 clarify whether they intend to assert claims on their own behalf. The order also concerns claims asserted on behalf of the Harris Brothers.
What happened
In Harris v. The City of New York, the plaintiffs sought permission to amend their complaint. Judge Broderick had already denied their request to assert claims on behalf of the Harris Brothers because those claims could not be brought without a lawyer.
The court was unsure whether the plaintiffs also intended to assert claims for themselves. The plaintiffs did not submit the requested clarification by February 12, 2024, and the court noted that mail delivery of its earlier order had failed for three of the four plaintiffs.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit a letter by March 7, 2024, explaining whether they intend to bring claims on their own behalf. Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to comply will result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Harris v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-06344
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 16, 2024
Background
On January 5, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a letter requesting permission to amend their complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 17, 2024, the court denied the request to the extent the proposed amended complaint sought to assert claims on behalf of the Harris Brothers. The court had previously indicated that those claims could not be brought without a lawyer.
Because it was unclear whether the plaintiffs also intended to assert claims on their own behalf, the January 17 order directed them to file a letter explaining their intentions by February 12, 2024. No such letter had been filed by February 16. The court also stated that the Clerk’s Office’s attempt to mail the January 17 order had failed as to three of the four plaintiffs.
Order
The court directed the plaintiffs to submit a letter by March 7, 2024, explaining whether they intend to file claims on their own behalf. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the case under Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey a court order. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to the plaintiffs at their last known addresses. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.