Hickman v. The City of New York

S.D. New York

Hickman v. The City of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-07205

StatusUnknown

This text of Hickman v. The City of New York (Hickman v. The City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hickman v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 3/8/2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : QUANDELL HICKMAN, : : Plaintiff, : 1:20-cv-7205-GHW : -v - : ORDER : THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY : SHIVRAJ, DEPUTY MORALES, DEPUTY : CARTER, AND SECURITY C.O. MCNIEL, : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge: On February 17, 2021, the Court reopened this case at Mr. Hickman’s request. See Dkt. Nos. 21-22. The Court scheduled a teleconference for March 8, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss next steps. On March 8, 2021, Mr. Hickman did not appear on the conference line. The Court, defense counsel, and the court reporter waited for fifteen minutes, providing Mr. Hickman with ample time to appear. After that time had passed, the Court adjourned the conference. The Court will hold a teleconference on March 15, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss how the parties should proceed with litigating this case. The parties should call into the Court’s dedicated conference line at (888) 557-8511, and enter Access Code 747-0200, followed by the pound (#) key. The parties are directed to the Court’s Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, which are available on the Court’s website, for other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(C) of the Court’s Emergency Rules. The Court reminds Mr. Hickman that he must comply with the Court’s orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” “Although the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) expressly addresses only the case in which a defendant moves for dismissal of an action, it is unquestioned that Rule 41(b) also gives the district court authority to dismiss a plaintiffs case sva sponte for failure to prosecute.” LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)). The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff by certified mail. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2021 J\ A 2g aA New York, New York Koo . WOODS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 3/8/2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : QUANDELL HICKMAN, : : Plaintiff, : 1:20-cv-7205-GHW : -v - : ORDER : THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY : SHIVRAJ, DEPUTY MORALES, DEPUTY : CARTER, AND SECURITY C.O. MCNIEL, : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge: On February 17, 2021, the Court reopened this case at Mr. Hickman’s request. See Dkt. Nos. 21-22. The Court scheduled a teleconference for March 8, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss next steps. On March 8, 2021, Mr. Hickman did not appear on the conference line. The Court, defense counsel, and the court reporter waited for fifteen minutes, providing Mr. Hickman with ample time to appear. After that time had passed, the Court adjourned the conference. The Court will hold a teleconference on March 15, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss how the parties should proceed with litigating this case. The parties should call into the Court’s dedicated conference line at (888) 557-8511, and enter Access Code 747-0200, followed by the pound (#) key. The parties are directed to the Court’s Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, which are available on the Court’s website, for other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(C) of the Court’s Emergency Rules. The Court reminds Mr. Hickman that he must comply with the Court’s orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” “Although the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) expressly addresses only the case in which a defendant moves for dismissal of an action, it is unquestioned that Rule 41(b) also gives the district court authority to dismiss a plaintiffs case sva sponte for failure to prosecute.” LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)). The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff by certified mail. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2021 J\ A 2g aA New York, New York Koo . WOODS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hickman v. The City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-the-city-of-new-york-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack