Williams v. The City of New York et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/23/18) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
RAHJEEM WILLIAMS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, D.T. COREY :
NOAK
:
:
Defendants.
:
X
------------------------------------------------------------

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: August 23, 2018

17-cv-5676 (KBF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

KATHERINE B. FORREST, United States District Judge:
Rahjeem Williams (“Williams” or “plaintiff”) filed suit pro se against the City
of New York and other defendants (“defendants”) alleging malicious prosecution
based on a June 16, 2016, police search of an apartment Williams was in. (See ECF
No. 34.) Plaintiff seeks $1 million in damages. (See id.) The Court dismissed the
case without prejudice on February 2, 2018, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute
and failure to comply with Court orders. (ECF No. 26). The Court reopened the
case, however, on February 26, 2018, after receiving an updated mailing address
from plaintiff. (See ECF No. 31.)
On July 30, 2018, the Court ordered plaintiff to serve full discovery responses
on defendants by August 15, 2018. (ECF No. 45.) The Court warned that failure to
serve the responses would result in dismissal of this case. (Id.) On August 17,
2018, the Court ordered defendants to provide the Court with a status update on

plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 47.) On August 20, 2018,
defendants informed the Court that plaintiff had still not served discovery
responses. (ECF No. 48) Defendants asked the Court to dismiss the case for failure
to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. (Id.)
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “gives the district court
authority to dismiss a plaintiff's case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.” LeSane v.
Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)). A district court considering a Rule 41(b)
dismissal with prejudice must weigh 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)). Even where a plaintiff fails to comply with a court
order that includes a notice of possible dismissal, “the court must still make a
finding of willfulness, bad faith, or reasonably serious fault” by evaluating those
criteria. Id. at 217 (quoting Mitchell v. Lyons Prof’l Servs., Inc., 708 F.3d 463, 467
(2d Cir. 2013)). A pro se litigant’s claims should be dismissed for failure to
prosecute “only when the circumstances are sufficiently extreme.” Id. (quoting
LeSane, 239 F.3d at 209).

2

On numerous instances, plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and failed
to comply with Court orders. Earlier in the litigation, plaintiff failed to provide the
Court and defendants with this proper address, despite repeated orders for him to
do so. (See ECF Nos. 6, 7, 11, 13, 25.) Now, plaintiff has failed to comply with the
Court’s order that he serve discovery responses on defendants, despite the Court’s
warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case. (See ECF No.
45.) This presents a sufficiently extreme situation to merit dismissal with
prejudice, as the five factors to be considered when dismissing a case indicate. See
Baptiste, 768 F.3d at 216-17.
First, plaintiff has failed to comply with Court orders throughout the
litigation. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the discovery order since July 30,
2018, when the Court ordered him to produce discovery responses. (ECF No. 45.)
This failure to comply comes after almost of year of non-compliance with Court
orders, beginning with the Court’s August 23, 2017, order that plaintiff provide an
updated address through to the Court’s previous dismissal of this case in February
2018. (See ECF No. 6; see also ECF Nos. 7, 11, 13, 25.)
Second, each Order regarding plaintiff’s failures to prosecute and failures to
comply have explicitly warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of
the case. (See ECF Nos. 6, 7, 11, 13, 25, 45; see also ECF No. 47.) Furthermore,
plaintiff should have been particularly aware of the real possibility of dismissal
given that his case was already dismissed for exactly the reason it was threatened
in the most recent order. (See ECF No. 26.)

3

Third, defendants are prejudiced by the extensive delays plaintiff has caused
by failing to comply with Court orders. Although the delay in each failure has not
been as long as it could have been, the repeated delays together have dramatically
slowed the pace of this case, which was filed more than a year ago and has not yet
proceeded through discovery. (See ECF No. 1.)
Fourth, dismissing this case in light of the Court’s strong interest in
managing its docket would not deprive plaintiff with a fair chance to be heard. The
Court has tried numerous times to prompt plaintiff’s engagement with his own case,
but the prompts have been unsuccessful. The Court must this time strike the
balance in favor of efficiency after giving plaintiff six opportunities to provide an
updated address (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 11, 13, 25, 40) and two opportunities to provide
defendants with required filings (ECF Nos. 21, 45), all to no avail.
Fifth, a less severe sanction is not appropriate at this point. The Court has
already given plaintiff a severe warning—dismissal without prejudice (ECF No.
26)—and a second chance—reopening of the case at plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 28).
Still, since reopening the case, plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case and comply
with Court orders on two occasions. (ECF Nos. 40, 45.) This demonstrates that less
severe sanctions will not cause plaintiff to comply.

4

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
August 23, 2018
_________________________________________
KATHERINE B. FORREST
United States District Judge

Copy to:
(1) Rahjeem Williams
720 Malcolm X Blvd., Apt. 12E
New York, NY 10037
(2) Rahjeem Williams
[e-mail]

5