Pal v. Cipolla

── Pal v. Cipolla ── Case No.: 24-1695 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 27, 2026 Category: General 24-1695-cv Pal v. Cipolla UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEELU PAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 24-1695-cv ROBERT CIPOLLA, ROBERT SMALDONE, MICHAEL TYLER, DANIEL MONAHAN, RICHARD JANES, TOWN OF WILTON, Defendants-Appellees,  SCOTT SEAR, DOE, A-X, Defendants. * ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: NEELU PAL, pro se, Westport, CT FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ANDREW J. GLASS (James N. ROBERT CIPOLLA, ROBERT Tallberg, on the brief), Karsten SMALDONE, AND MICHAEL TYLER: & Tallberg, LLC, Rocky Hill, CT FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES PATRICK M. MULLINS, Cotter, DANIEL MONAHAN AND RICHARD Cotter & Mullins, JANES: LLC, Trumbull, CT Appeal from a judgment and order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Michael P. Shea, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment and order of the District Court are AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Neelu Pal, representing herself, appeals from the May 24, 2024 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Shea, J.) dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute under * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and the District Court’s June 3, 2024 order denying her motion for reconsideration. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We review the District Court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute “for an abuse of discretion.” Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212, 216 (2d Cir. 2014). Understanding that these dismissals are “the harshest of sanctions,” Mitchell v. Lyons Pro. Servs., Inc., 708 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2013), “we review the trial court’s decision by examining” the following five factors: Whether (1) the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute caused a delay of significant duration; (2) the plaintiff was given notice that further delay would result in dismissal; (3) the defendant was likely to be pr