Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 20, 2024

Williams v. Smith

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:22-cv-06482
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Williams v. Smith, Judge Seibel ordered Williams to explain service failures and an address change or risk dismissal.

Who this affects

Marquise Williams must respond in writing by June 19, 2024, to explain whether he wants to continue the case and address the service and address-update issues. The order also concerns service on Marquis Smith.

What happened

In Williams v. Smith, the Marshals Service reported that it could not serve Defendant Marquis Smith. The court also noted that Marquise Williams did not request more time for service or update his address.

The court ordered Williams to tell the court in writing by June 19, 2024, whether he wants to continue the case and, if so, why he did not request more time or provide a current address.

Judge Seibel did not dismiss the case in this order. She warned that failing to respond or responding inadequately may result in dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. Smith · No. 7:22-cv-06482
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
May 20, 2024

Background

In an earlier order, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Defendant Marquis Smith. The court also told Plaintiff Marquise Williams that he should request an extension if Smith was not served within 90 days after the summons was issued. Williams was further ordered to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court warned that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

The Marshals Service reported that it could not serve Smith. Williams did not request additional time for service. The court also found that Williams had not kept the court informed of his current address: the docket listed Collins Correctional Facility, while the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision website listed him at Mohawk Correctional Facility. Because of these failures and the time that had passed without communication from Williams, the court was unsure whether he wanted to continue the case.

Order

The court ordered Williams to advise it in writing no later than June 19, 2024, whether he wished to pursue the case. If he wished to continue, he also had to explain why he had not requested an extension of time for service or provided a current address.

The court warned that failure to respond, or an inadequate response, may result in dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C) and/or 41(b). The court did not dismiss the case in this order. The clerk was directed to send the order to Williams at both the address listed on the docket and Mohawk Correctional Facility.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.