Haynie v. Department of Correction et al
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 25 Report and Recommendations. ENDORSEMENT: No objections have been filed to Magistrate Judge Netburn's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated November 25, 2015. The Court adopts the R&R and directs the Cler k of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a) (3) I find that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 12/30/2015) (lmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: December 30, 2015
No objections have been filed to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) dated November 25, 2015. The Court adopts
the R&R and directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the
case without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a) (3) I find that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:
SO ORDERED – 12-30-15
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al.,
TO THE HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY:
Paul A. Crotty, U.S.D.J
Pro se plaintiff Leon Haynie has not provided the Court with a valid mailing address and
has not taken any action to prosecute this case since June 18, 2015. By three separate orders, the
Court has informed Haynie that it does not have his mailing address, and the Court has twice
warned him that his failure to provide this information or otherwise prosecute his case could
result in the dismissal of his claims.
Because Haynie has not contacted the Court to provide his address or taken any other
action to prosecute this action since June 18, 2015, the Court recommends that his claims be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
In May 2015, Haynie sued the New York Department of Correction and individual
defendants alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed his Complaint from a Department of
Correction facility on Rikers Island. On June 17, 2015, after it came to the Court’s attention that
Haynie had been released from custody, the Court ordered Haynie to provide a valid mailing
Case 1:15-cv-04000-PAC-SN Document 25 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 5
address within 30 days. On June 18, 2015, Haynie submitted a form listing his address as “Apt #
322, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11207,” without providing a street name. ECF No. 13. On June 19, 2015,
the Court ordered Haynie to provide a complete address. Haynie did not reply. On August 4,
2015, the Court again ordered Haynie to provide his full address and instructed him to advise the
Court whether he intends to pursue this action. The Court warned that a failure to respond by
September 30, 2015, could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Haynie did not reply. On
September 19, 2015, the Court entered another order instructing Haynie to provide his contact
information and warned him for a second time that a failure to do so could result in dismissal of
his claims. Haynie did not respond.
A plaintiff has a general obligation to prosecute his case diligently. See Lyell Theatre
Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1982). A court may dismiss the action, pursuant
to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to prosecute if the plaintiff fails
to meet this obligation. In fact, “[a] plaintiff[’]s lack of diligence alone is enough for
dismissal.” West v. City of New York, 130 F.R.D. 522, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (citation omitted).
A pro se plaintiff, however, “should be granted special leniency regarding procedural matters.”
LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001).
Although Rule 41(b) provides that “a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it” when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or to comply with a court order, the
court need not wait for a defendant to file such a motion. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 629 (1962). Moreover, the court is not required to provide notice of the dismissal. “[S]uch
dismissal is largely a matter of the judge’s discretion.” See West, 130 F.R.D. at 524. Indeed,
because district courts are “necessarily vested” with the control required “to manage their own
Case 1:15-cv-04000-PAC-SN Document 25 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 5
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases,” the court may even
dismiss an action with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case. Link, 370 U.S. at
In deciding whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, the court must consider
five factors: “(1) the duration of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court order, (2) whether
plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal, (3) whether the
defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings, (4) a balancing of the
court’s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff’s interest in receiving a fair chance to be
heard, and (5) whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than
dismissal.” Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212, 216 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lucas v. Miles, 84
F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996)). Of these factors, no particular one is generally dispositive. Id.
(citing Nita v. Connecticut Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 16 F.3d 482, 485 (2d Cir. 1994)).
While a district court is not required to address each of these factors in its written
decision by a list of “‘robotic incantations,’” id. at 217 (quoting United States v. Crosby, 397
F.3d 103, 113 (2d Cir. 2005)), the court at a minimum must provide a reason for the dismissal.
See Grace v. New York, 10 Civ. 3853 (LTS)(GWG), 2010 WL 3489574, at *2 (Sept. 7, 2010),
report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 4026060 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010).
The Court first informed Haynie that his mailing address was not complete and valid on
June 19, 2015, but Haynie has not responded to any Court orders since that date. In its August 4,
2015 Order, the Court provided Haynie with notice that this Court would recommend that his
claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he did not contact the Court. The Court warned
Haynie a second time on September 19, 2015. Haynie’s failure to respond over the period of five
months, even after warnings that his case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute, justify
Case 1:15-cv-04000-PAC-SN Document 25 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 5
dismissal. But because Haynie is pro se, I recommend that his claims be dismissed without
prejudice so that he has every opportunity for a day in court.
This report and recommendation provides plaintiff further notice and another opportunity
to be heard before the District Judge.
For these reasons, I recommend that all claims asserted by Haynie be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DATED: New York, New York
November 25, 2015
NOTICE OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS
TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The parties shall have fourteen days from the service of this Report and Recommendation
to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d) (adding three additional days when service
is made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F)). A party may respond to another
party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with courtesy copies delivered to the
chambers of the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, and to any opposing parties. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d), 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time for filing
Case 1:15-cv-04000-PAC-SN Document 25 Filed 11/25/15 Page 5 of 5
objections must be addressed to Judge Crotty. The failure to file these timely objections will
result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d), 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?