Harris v. Westchester County Department of Corrections et al

Filing 73

ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, by no later than 30 days from the date of this Order, as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89, 103 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that "a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute"); Robinson v. United States, No. 03-CV-1001, 2005 WL 2234051, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2005) ("Only the Plaintiff can be respo nsible for notifying the court and the Defendant of his updated address, and Plaintiffs failure to do so has made it impossible to provide him any notice."). The Court may dismiss this case with prejudice without further notice in the event th at good cause is not shown. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 12/4/2019) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Modified on 12/5/2019 (va).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MYLES DEANTE CLAY HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
No. 17-CV-839 (KMK)
V.

ORDER
WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:
Myles Deante Clay Harris ("Plaintiff') initiated this Action by filing a Complaint on
February 2, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants Answered on June 29, 2017. (See Ans. (Dkt. No.
13).) Following motion practice, the Court partially granted and partially denied Defendants '
Motion for Summary Judgment on October 15, 2019. (See Op. & Order ("Op.") (Dkt. No. 70).)
In that Opinion, the Court scheduled a status conference for November 7, 2019, (id. at 34 ), which
was later rescheduled for December 3, 2019, (Dkt. No. 72). On December 3, 2019, the Court
was informed by defense counsel that Plaintiff had been transferred to a different facility than the
one recorded as his address on the docket, Mid-State Correctional Facility ("Mid-State").
Despite calling the number provided multiple times, the Court was unable to reach Plaintiff at the
time of the conference. Nor has Plaintiff updated his address on the record or further
communicated with the Court. At the beginning of this Action, Plaintiff was instructed to notify
the Court of any address changes or risk dismissal of his case. (Se e Order of Service 3 (Dkt. No.
6).)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, by no later than 30 days from the
date of this

Order, trn to why this case should not be diBmiBB,d for foil\.ffy to prosecute.

See

Armstrong v. Guccione , 470 F.3d 89, 103 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that "a federal district court
has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute"); Robinson v. United
States, No. 03-CV-1001 , 2005 WL 2234051 , at *2 (S.D.N .Y. Sept. 8, 2005) ("Only the Plaintiff
can be responsible for notifying the court and the Defendant of his updated address, and
Plaintiffs failure to do so has made it impossible to provide him any notice. "). The Court may
dismiss this case with prejudice without further notice in the event that good cause is not shown.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

December 4, 2019
White Plains, New York

2