James v. Police Officers One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven of the Yonkers Swat Team

Filing 8

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff file her amended complaint on or before May 25, 2017. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by that deadline, then this action may be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed R. Civ . P. 41(b) for want of prosecution. Similarly, failure to update her address with the Court may also result in dismissal. If there are extenuating circumstances justifying Plaintiff's delay in this matter, then she should provide the Court with a written explanation prior to the deadline above. If Plaintiff continues to let this matter linger, then the Court will have no choice but to discontinue the action by dismissing the complaint and closing this case. (Amended Pleadings due by 5/25/2017.) (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 4/25/2017) (jwh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AURIA R. JAMES,
Plaintiff,
15-cv-4333 (NSR)

-againstTHE CITY OF YONKERS, and Police Officers
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven of the
Yonkers Swat Team,

ORDER

Defendants.
NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge
On March 24, 2016, the Court requested that its previous order from June 16, 2015 be
served on the parties after it came to the Court's attention that the Clerk of the Court had
inadvertently failed to send the 2015 order to the parties. In the 2015 order, amongst other
things, the Court directed the City of Yonkers to "asce1tain the identities of the seven John Doe
Police Officers whom Plaintiff seeks to sue," along with "the addresses where these defendants
may be served." (Order at 2, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was required to amend the complaint in this
action within thilty days of receiving this information. (Id at 3.)
By letter dated May 16, 2016, the City of Yonkers responded that it had concluded that

six police officers "responded to the scene" of the incident in question: Sgt. Robert Zingaro, P.O.
Ray Dugan, P.O. Shaun Hartley, P.O. Richard Gogola, P.O. David Medlar, and P.O. Richard
Sullivan. (ECF No. 7.) The City indicated that all of the officers could be served at: The
Yonkers Police Department, Records Division, 104 South Broadway, Yonkers, New York
10701. (Id) It has been nearly a year since the City provided this information, but Plaintiff has
---~ -· .nqtfl~d an0.~g},~g<:!ed~omplaint naming the John Doe defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff has not
USDCSDN~

DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:

I

I
I

I~ DATf<: FILED:iLl]. :( 1 l. I
'2-01

taken any action with respect to this case since filing the complaint on May 29, 2015. Under
Rule 4l(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a district judge may, sua sponte, and
without notice to the parties, dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution .... " Taub v. Hale,
355 F.2d 201, 202 (2d Cir. 1966). See West v. Cily of New York, 130 F.R.D. 522, 524 (S.D.N.Y.
1990) ("[T]he Supreme Court has recognized the inherent power of a district judge to dismiss a
case for the plaintiffs failure to prosecute.").
The information regarding the John Doe officers was sent to Plaintiffs last known
address:
Auria R. James
269 East l 94th Street
Apt. IE
Bronx, NY 10458
"The duty to inform the Court and defendants of any change of address is an obligation that rests
with all prose plaintiffs." Alomar v. Recard, No. 07 Civ. 5654 (CS) (PED), 2010 WL 451047,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not
updated her address; therefore, the Court can only assume this address is still valid. If this
address is no longer valid, Plaintiff should be aware that"[c]omts have repeatedly recognized
that dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate where a plaintiff effectively disappears by
failing to provide a current address at which he or she can be reached." Torres v. Yonkers Police
Dep 't, No. 11 Civ. 1819 (LTS) (GWG), 2011 WL 2555854, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011)
(collecting cases); Edwards v. Stevens, No. 11 Civ. 7329 (PKC) (JLC), 2012 WL 3597663, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2012).
The Court is mindful of Plaintiffs prose status, but Plaintiff must also be mindful of the
Court's time and limited resources: failure to advance this action for nearly a year since the City
provided the necessary information regarding the John Does indicates to the Court that Plaintiff
2

would rather have the action dismissed than continue forward. See generally Nita v. Connecticut

Dep 't of Envtl. Prof., 16 F.3d 482, 486 (2d Cir. 1994); LeSane v. Hall's Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239
F.3d 206, 210 (2d Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff file her amended complaint on or
before May 25, 2017. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by that deadline, then this
action may be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4l(b) for want of
prosecution. Similarly, failure to update her address with the Comt may also result in dismissal.
If there are extenuating circumstances justifying Plaintiff's delay in this matter, then she should

provide the Court with a written explanation prior to the deadline above. If Plaintiff continues to
let this matter linger, then the Court will have no choice but to discontinue the action by
dismissing the complaint and closing this case.

Dated:

April Z.(2017
White Plains, New York

Unite

3