Summary
concluding that a dismissal for failure to prosecute should be without prejudice "[g]iven the plaintiff's pro se status"
Summary of this case from Parsaram v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLCOpinion
01 Civ. 6482 (RLE)
August 29, 2002
Jean Reynel, Bronx, NY., Counsel for Plaintiff.
Susan D. Baird, Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York, New York, NY, Counsel for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
The complaint in this social security action was filed on July 18, 2001. Following a status conference with the Court on March 19, 2002, the Court issued an order directing defendant to file its dispositive motion by May 14, 2002, with a response by plaintiff Jean Reynel ("Reynel") due June 11, 2002. The defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but Reynel filed no response by the due date. On June 20, 2002, this Court issued an order directing Reynel to file his response or show cause by July 1, 2002, why defendant's motion should not be granted and his case dismissed. A review of the record indicates that to date, Reynel has still not filed a response to defendant's motion. Because Reynel has failed to pursue his claim by defending its dismissal, and because he failed to comply with the Court's orders despite warning of dismissal, the above entitled action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. ANALYSIS
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part' "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [. . .] any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant." Under Rule 41(b), plaintiff has an obligation to diligently prosecute his case. See Lyell Theatre Corp., 682 F.2d at 43; see also Lucien v. Breweur, 9 F.3d 26, 29 (7th Cir. 1993). Thus, "[c]ompletely aside from his failure to comply with the order, a dismissal is justified for [plaintiffs] failure to prosecute at all." Chira v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 634 F.2d 664, 667 (2d Cir. 1980).
A district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). The Supreme Court explained that such authority is governed "by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Id. at 630-31.
In the instant case, the record indicates that in failing to respond to defendant's motion, Reynel has failed to defend and otherwise pursue his claim. He has failed to comply with this Court's order directing him to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed, and has failed to otherwise contact the Court. Therefore, the Court concludes that Reynel's noncompliance warrants dismissal of the action. Given the plaintiffs pro se status, the Court deems it proper in this case that dismissal be without prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasons, Reynel's claim is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.