Box v. Palma #1343 et al
DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. A copy of this NEF and Order have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 3/10/2018. (AFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRANDON WESLEY BOX,
Case # 13-CV-6589-FPG
OFFICER D. PALMA #1343,
OFFICER E. CATON #1337, &
OFFICER S. GREENE #1327,
On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff brought this case against Defendants. ECF No. 1. On
December 5, 2013, the Court stayed this case pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal charges
in New York State Court. ECF No. 3.
On October 23, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why his case
should not be dismissed for failure to “contact the Court to inform it as to the state of his criminal
charges every six months.” ECF No. 10. On December 8, 2014, the Court dismissed this case
because Plaintiff failed to provide the requisite status reports and to respond to the October 23,
2014 Order to Show Cause. ECF No 11.
On July 2, 2015, the Court vacated that Order and reopened this case after learning that the
Order to Show Cause was sent to the wrong address and that Plaintiff had sent status reports to the
Court but they were not docketed. ECF No. 14. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a report
regarding the status of his state court appeal within 30 days of the date of the Order and to file a
status report every six months thereafter. Id. at 1-2. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to notify it
immediately if the state court issued a ruling on his appeal. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff provided status reports to the Court on July 6, July 13, and December 23, 2015,
and March 3, May 13, and December 5, 2016. ECF Nos. 15-19. In his last status report, Plaintiff
wrote that his state court appeal “is now currently being decided.” ECF No. 19 at 1. Despite the
Court’s directive that Plaintiff provide status reports every six months, Plaintiff did not
communicate with the Court for nearly 11 months. Accordingly, on November 2, 2017, the Court
again ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by December 4, 2017, why his case should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 20.
Plaintiff timely responded to the Order to Show Cause and informed the Court that his state
court case is pending before the New York State Court of Appeals. ECF No. 21 at 1. Based on
Plaintiff’s response, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report as to his state court appeal by
January 8, 2018 and every six months thereafter. Despite this deadline, Plaintiff did not file a
status report or otherwise communicate with the Court. Thus, on January 25, 2018, the Court again
ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by February 26, 2018 why this case should not be
dismissed for his repeated failure to adhere to the Court’s deadlines. The show cause deadline
passed and the Court has not heard from Plaintiff.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to “dismiss a complaint for failure to comply
with a court order, treating the noncompliance as a failure to prosecute.” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49
F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962)). Although
it is a harsh remedy, the rule is “intended to serve as a rarely employed, but useful, tool of judicial
administration available to district courts in managing their specific cases and general caseload.”
Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2004).
A district court considering a Rule 41(b) dismissal 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). No single factor is generally dispositive. Nita v. Connecticut Dep’t
of Envtl. Prot., 16 F.3d 482, 485 (2d Cir. 1994).
Here, the Court has given Plaintiff many opportunities to prosecute his case, which is now
over four years old, and even reopened this case after it was dismissed. Nonetheless, Plaintiff
continues to disregard the Court’s Orders and deadlines. The Court has ordered Plaintiff to show
cause on three separate occasions, and each Order warned him that his case was in jeopardy of
being dismissed. ECF Nos. 10, 20, 23. Despite the most recent warning in the Court’s January
25, 2018 Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has not responded and has repeatedly failed to prosecute
this case. Accordingly, there is no effective sanction less drastic than dismissal.
For the reasons stated, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of
Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2018
Rochester, New York
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?