Adams v. Annucci

Filing 82

ORDER: Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint and has not otherwise communicated with the Court. A district court may dismiss a claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir. 1996). Such au thority "is an inherent...control necessarilyvested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Theilmann v. Rutland Hospital, 455 F.2d 853, 855 (2d Cir.1972) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 63031 (1962)). Given this authority, the Court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiffs Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims is warranted. Plaintiff has been afforded nearly a year to file a third amended complaint t o address the deficiencies in his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and has not done so. Plaintiff was instructed that failure to do so could result in dismissal of these claims. (Dkt. No 60.) Given that Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint, his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 4/1/2021) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JERRY ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
No. 17-CV-3794 (KMK)
v.
ORDER
ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al.,
Defendants.

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
On March 27, 2020, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 60.) The Court stated that if Plaintiff wished
to file a third amended complaint alleging additional facts with respect to his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims, he must do so within 30 days of the date of the Opinion & Order.
(Id.) After multiple extensions of time, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Reconsideration. (Dkt. No.
75.) On January 29, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration. (Dkt. No.
77.) On February 4, 2021, Defendants requested that the Court lift the stay of deadlines for
Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 78.) On February 4, 2021, the Court
granted Defendants’ request and lifted the stay of deadlines for Plaintiff to file any further
amended pleadings. (Dkt. No. 79.) The Court also directed Plaintiff to file a third amended
complaint by March 16, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint and has
not otherwise communicated with the Court.
A district court may dismiss a claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Palmieri v.
Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir. 1996). Such authority “is an inherent . . . control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious

disposition of cases.” Theilmann v. Rutland Hospital, 455 F.2d 853, 855 (2d Cir.1972) (quoting
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). Given this authority, the Court
concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims is warranted.
Plaintiff has been afforded nearly a year to file a third amended complaint to address the
deficiencies in his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and has not done so. Plaintiff was
instructed that failure to do so could result in dismissal of these claims. (Dkt. No 60.)
Given that Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint, his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2021
White Plains, New York
________________________________
KENNETH M. KARAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2