McNeil v. NYC HHC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10015
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McNeil v. NYC HHC, Judge Schofield ordered service-related filings and warned of dismissal, while postponing the initial conference.
Willie R. McNeil, III, who was representing himself, and the defendants, who had not appeared.
What happened
In Willie R. McNeil, III v. NYC HHC, et al., the defendants had not appeared, and McNeil had not filed proof that they were served. The complaint was filed on November 13, 2023, and the court said the 90-day service deadline was February 12, 2024.
The court ordered McNeil to submit a letter of no more than two pages explaining the failure to serve the defendants and stating whether he intended to continue the case. If the defendants had been served, he had to file proof of service for each one. If they had not been served, he had to serve them under the federal service rules and file proof the same day.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if McNeil did not meet the filing requirements by March 20, 2024. She also postponed the initial pretrial conference from February 21 to March 27, 2024, and directed the Clerk to mail the order and court rules to McNeil, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- McNeil v. NYC HHC · No. 1:23-cv-10015
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
The complaint was filed on November 13, 2023. An earlier order had postponed the initial pretrial conference and provided McNeil with guidance on serving the defendants. As of this order, the defendants had not appeared, and McNeil had not filed proof of service.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing. The court identified February 12, 2024, as the deadline in this case.
Court’s directives
The court ordered McNeil to send Chambers a letter of no more than two pages explaining why he had not served the summons and complaint within the 90-day period and stating whether he intended to proceed against the defendants.
If the defendants had already been served, McNeil was ordered to file proof of service for each defendant. If they had not been served, he was ordered to serve them under Rule 4 as explained in the earlier order and file proof of service on the docket on the same day he served them.
Warning and conference
The court ordered that, if McNeil failed by March 20, 2024, to submit the required letter or file the required proof of service, the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also adjourned the initial pretrial conference from February 21 to March 27, 2024, at 4:10 p.m. The conference was to be held by telephone. The Clerk was directed to mail McNeil, who was proceeding without a lawyer, a copy of the order and the court’s individual rules.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.