Deans v. Cimorelli

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 7:18-cv-02576
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BREE TRO MERE! RAGED DOC #: TASHAY DAVID DEANS, DATE FILED: 06/27/2025 Plaintiff, 18-cv-2576 (NSR) -against- ORDER SERGEANT CIMORELLL, ET AL, Defendants.

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: On April 1, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing pro se Plaintiff Tashay David Deans (“pro se Plaintiff’) to show cause in writing on or before April 29, 2025, as to why pro se Plaintiff’s complaint should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). To date, the deadline expired nearly two months ago, and pro se Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Indeed, it has been over a year since the Court or Defendant have heard from pro se Plaintiff. Particularly, not only has pro se Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action impeded the Court’s effort to “avoid calendar congestion and ensure an orderly and expeditious disposition of cases,” Cortez v. Suffolk Cty. Corr. Facility, No. 15-CV-1957 (JFB) (AKT), 2016 WL 6302088, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2016), but the adversary process has been halted because of . . . essentially unresponsive part[ies],” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 835-36 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Dismissal for want of prosecution is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge.” Peart v. City of New York, 992 F.2d 458, 461 (2d Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the significant passage of time in the instant action, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES the above-captioned action without prejudice for want of prosecution. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate this action. Dated: June 27, 2025 SO ORDERED: White Plains, NY OO ye i i I fr _ f □□□ NELSON S, ROMAN United States District Judge