Ali Cisse v. Anthony J. Annucci, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALI CISSE, Plaintiff, Case # 22-CV-6071-FPG v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et al., Defendants.

This action was commenced in February 2022, when pro se Plaintiff Ali Cisse filed a complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On September 20, 2024, Defendants moved for summary judgment, purportedly on all of Plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 55. However, in that motion, Defendants only addressed four of Plaintiff’s seven claims. Id. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

On September 3, 2025, this Court issued a Decision and Order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the four claims addressed by Defendants in the motion. ECF No. 58.

In that decision, Defendants were directed to inform the Court by October 1, 2025, whether they believed that they could plausibly move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Id. at 18. Defendants filed a letter on September 5, 2025, requesting the opportunity to move for summary judgment on the remaining claims. ECF No. 59.

The decision also directed Plaintiff to inform the Court by October 1, 2025, whether he wished to proceed with prosecuting this action in light of the dismissal of four of his claims. ECF No. 58 at 18. He was further advised that if he did not “submit a written response to the Court by October 1, 2025, the Court may treat his noncompliance as a failure to prosecute and may dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).” Id. Plaintiff has yet to respond to the Court’s order. His last contact with the Court was a letter dated August 4, 2024, notifying the Court of his new address. ECF No. 49.

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if a civil case has been pending for more than six months and a party is not in compliance with the directions of the district court, the Court may order the party to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s directives. Loc. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., No. 10-CV-591, 2012 WL 2178924, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012) (“It is axiomatic that a party to an action pending in a federal district court, whether a plaintiff or defendant, is required to comply with legitimate court directives.”); Yulle v. Barkley, No. 05-CV-0802, 2007 WL 2156644, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 25, 2007) (“Th[e] power to dismiss [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)] may be exercised when necessary to achieve orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”).

Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court by October 1, 2025, as ordered in the Court’s September 3, 2025 Decision and Order (ECF No. 58), Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s directives.

By November 10, 2025, Plaintiff must file a written response explaining (a) why he did not respond to the Court’s September 3, 2025 Decision and Order and (b) whether, in light of his failure to communicate with the Court for more than a year and the Court’s Decision and Order dismissing four of his claims, he wishes to continue pursuing his three remaining claims.

If Plaintiff fails to file his written response by November 10, 2025, the Court may treat his noncompliance as a failure to prosecute and may dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The district court [] has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order, treating the noncompliance as a failure to prosecute.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Rochester, New York October 15, 2025 /FRANK P. GERACTI, JR. United States District Yudge Western District of New York