Mahmood v. United States Postal Office

Filing 6

ORDER: For the reasons in the attached Order, the Court dismisses this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A copy of this Order has been mailed to Syed Mahmood, 132 Pleasant Run Road, Amherst, NY 14228. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 4/25/17. (LAS)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SYED MAHMOOD,
Plaintiff,

v.

15-CV-664

UNITED STATES POSTAL OFFICE,
Defendant.

ORDER
On October 7, 2016, the Court ordered the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s
motion to dismiss by November 9, 2016. (Dkt. No. 5). The Court further advised the
plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in dismissal pursuant
to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Several months later, and despite the Court’s
order, the plaintiff has not responded to the defendant’s motion.
The Court has considered the factors relevant to the question whether to dismiss
a case for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with a court’s order. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569, 576 (2d Cir. 2009).
First, the plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order may
result in dismissal.
Second, although this case has not taken up the Court’s time or congested its
docket, “[b]ecause [plaintiff] has made no effort to comply with the Court’s directives or
to prosecute [this] action, it would be unfair to the numerous other litigants who await
the attention of this Court to permit [the plaintiff’s] suit to remain on the docket.”

Feurtado v. City of New York, 225 F.R.D. 474, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). In other words, the
Court has considered the plaintiff’s “right to an opportunity for a day in court,” Lewis,
564 F.3d at 576, but that right is entitled to little weight when the plaintiff has not shown
an intent to exercise the right.
And third, no lesser sanction would be appropriate or effective. The Court lacks
information about the plaintiff’s ability to pay a fine or a monetary sanction, meaning
that the only other conceivable sanction short of dismissal would be to, once again,
direct the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. However, “[a] court
need not beg a party to comply with its orders.” Peters-Turnbell v. Bd. of Ed. of City of
New York, No. 96 CIV. 4914(SAS), 1999 WL 959375, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 1999).
Thus, after careful consideration, the Court dismisses this case, with prejudice,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: April 25, 2017