Stephen v. Hall
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-02225-JPO-VF
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Stephen v. Hall, Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice after Stephen failed to prosecute and serve the remaining defendants.
Daryl Stephen’s action was dismissed without prejudice after he did not respond to the court’s order to show cause or provide additional service addresses for Terry Hall and David Jakab.
What happened
Stephen v. Hall involved Daryl Stephen, who represented himself and filed the action in 2019. His remaining claims were against Terry Hall and David Jakab, but neither defendant had been served.
The court and U.S. Marshals made several efforts to obtain service addresses for Hall and Jakab. After the court ordered Stephen to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of progress and extended his response deadline, Stephen filed no response and provided no additional addresses.
Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice under the rule allowing dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or follow a court order. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Stephen and close the case.
The detailed version
- Stephen v. Hall · No. 1:19-cv-02225-JPO-VF
- James Oetken
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
Daryl Stephen filed this action on March 1, 2019, and proceeded without a lawyer. Although Stephen filed a Third Amended Complaint in December 2020, his remaining active claims were against Terry Hall and David Jakab. Neither defendant had been served.
Efforts to Complete Service
In August 2022, the U.S. Marshals attempted to serve Hall and Jakab at an address Stephen provided but could not do so. The court then made additional efforts to help Stephen obtain service addresses. In October 2022, Judge Valerie Figueredo directed counsel for David Jakab Bail Bonds LLC to provide service addresses for Hall and Jakab, but the mailed order was returned. In November 2022, Judge Figueredo ordered one final effort to identify the addresses and directed the clerk to mail the request to an alternative address.
On January 16, 2024, the court ordered Stephen to explain by February 13 why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it. The court warned that it would dismiss the case if Stephen did not respond. On February 12, the court extended the response deadline to March 11. Stephen submitted no filing or other communication, and the court received no additional information about addresses for Hall or Jakab. The case had been pending for more than five years without service on any defendant, and the court found that no additional addresses were available for attempted service.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court concluded that Stephen had been warned that further delay could result in dismissal and that his unreasonable delay caused prejudice. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Stephen and close the case.
Disposition
The action was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.