Dailey v. Knight et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration re 26 Order Dismissing Case. For the reasons described in the attached Ruling, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 02/01/2022. (Castano, Nelson)

Case 3:16-cv-01787-VAB Document 29 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ERNEST DAILEY,
Plaintiff(s),
v.

No. 3:16-cv-1787 (VAB)

URSULA KNIGHT, et al,
Defendants.
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ernest Dailey (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner within the custody of the Connecticut Department
of Correction (“DOC”), filed this Complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Medical
Supervisor Ursula Knight, Dr. Figura, Nurse Amy, Supervisor Raquel Lightner, Supervisor
Greene, Dr. Pillai, Dr. Naqvi, and Kevin McCrystal. Compl., ECF No. 1 (Oct 27, 2016).
The Court permitted Mr. Dailey’s claims alleging deliberate indifference to his need for
cream to treat his skin condition and his need to be referred to a dermatologist to proceed. Initial
Review Order, ECF No. 9 (Jan. 30, 2017).
On January 13, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why this matter
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and provided Mr. Dailey with a response date of
February 14, 2020. Order, ECF No. 25 (Jan. 13, 2020). After Mr. Dailey failed to file any
response by February 14, 2020 and filed no motion for an extension of time to do so, the Court
on February 21, 2020 dismissed this action for failure to prosecute. Order, ECF No. 26 (Feb. 21,
2020).
Approximately a year and a half later, Mr. Dailey filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s order to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 27
(Aug. 3, 2021). Defendants have filed an opposition thereto. Defs.’ Opp’n. to Pl.’s 8/3/2021 Mot.
1

Case 3:16-cv-01787-VAB Document 29 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 5

for Recons., ECF No. 28 (Aug. 7, 2021) (“Mem. in Opp’n”). Mr. Dailey has not filed a reply
memorandum.
For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration will be DENIED.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for reconsideration “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point

to controlling decisions or data . . . that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion
reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)(1) (“Motions for reconsideration shall not be routinely filed and shall
satisfy the strict standard applicable to such motions.”). “The major grounds justifying
reconsideration are ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence,
or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v.
Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E.
Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790).
III.

DISCUSSION
Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is subject to the sound discretion of the district

courts. See United States ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375 F.3d 248, 250–51 (2d Cir. 2004)
(“We do not doubt a district judge’s authority to dismiss actions on a plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute.”). “A district court considering a Rule 41(b) dismissal must weigh five factors: ‘(1)
the duration of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court order, (2) whether plaintiff was on
notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal, (3) whether the defendants are likely to be
prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings, (4) a balancing of the court’s interest in managing
its docket with the plaintiff’s interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard, and (5) whether the

2

Case 3:16-cv-01787-VAB Document 29 Filed 02/01/22 Page 3 of 5

judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal.’” Baptiste v. Sommers,
768 F.3d 212, 216 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir.1996)).
No single factor is dispositive and a court must weigh all five factors in determining
whether dismissal is appropriate. See United States ex rel. Drake, 375 F.3d at 254. “[T]he usual
sanction for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) is dismissal with prejudice.” See Tenesca v.
Gemelli Rest. Grp. Inc., No. 19-CV-10976 (AJN), 2021 WL 4041105, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3,
2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal
under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for lack of
jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates as an
adjudication on the merits.”)).
After review of these five factors, the Court concludes that its prior order dismissing the
matter under Rule 41(b) was warranted.
Mr. Dailey has not made substantive efforts to prosecute his case since he filed it more
than four years ago on October 27, 2016. As an initial matter, the docket reflects that the Court
has twice provided Mr. Dailey with notice that his failure to comply with the Court’s show cause
orders would result in dismissal. See Order, ECF No. 20 (Sept. 11, 2018); Order, ECF No. 25
(Jan. 13, 2020).
After Mr. Dailey filed a notice of change of address on October 1, 2018 in response to the
first order to show cause, the Defendants filed their Answer on October 24, 2018. Notice of
Change of Address, ECF No. 21 (Oct. 1, 2018); Def.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, ECF
No. 22 (Oct. 24, 2018). Thereafter, a docket entry on May 13, 2019 reflects that Mr. Dailey’s
mail from the Court was returned as undeliverable with no known address and that Mr. Dailey
had been discharged.

3

Case 3:16-cv-01787-VAB Document 29 Filed 02/01/22 Page 4 of 5

The Court subsequently issued its second order to show cause why the Court should not
dismiss this matter with a response date of February 14, 2020. Order, ECF No. 25 (Jan. 13,
2020). Because Mr. Dailey failed to comply with the Court’s show cause order, the Court
dismissed the matter on February 21, 2020. Order, ECF No. 26 (Feb. 21, 2020); see Avila v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 15-cv-2456 (JGK), 2016 WL 1562944, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2016)
(dismissing for failure to prosecute where seven months had elapsed since defendant had filed a
motion to dismiss).
Mr. Dailey did not seek to reopen this matter until August 3, 2021, more than one year
after the Court issued its order of dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Order, ECF No. 26 (Feb.
21, 2020); Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 27 (Aug. 3, 2021). Because Mr. Dailey’s claims concern
facts that allegedly occurred as long ago as October 2014, any discovery still outstanding into
Mr. Dailey’s claim will be hindered by the delay caused by his prior failure to prosecute this
action. Moreover, Defendants would be prejudiced if this matter is reopened because they will
need to locate, for purposes of preparing for trial, any witnesses or defendants who may no
longer work for the DOC, and witnesses may no longer retain a clear recollection of the relevant
events.
Mr. Dailey has explained that he has experienced health issues due to his having suffered
a stroke in the past, which is referenced in his Complaint in this matter. Compl. at 5, ECF No. 1
(Oct. 27, 2021). But Defendants have submitted evidentiary materials showing that, after he filed
this action, Mr. Dailey committed various violations of his special parole and accrued numerous
disciplinary reports for interference with safety and security while in DOC custody, despite his
asserted health issues. See Mem. in Opp’n at 4-5; Ex. 1 to Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 28-1 (Aug.
7, 2021); Ex. 2 to Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 28-2 (Aug. 7, 2021); Ex. 3 to Mem. in Opp’n, ECF

4

Case 3:16-cv-01787-VAB Document 29 Filed 02/01/22 Page 5 of 5

No. 28-3 (Aug. 7, 2021). Defendants’ counsel also refutes Mr. Dailey’s claim that he made her
aware of his address during the pendency of this action. Mem. in Opp’n at 5.
While the Court recognizes the importance of an inmate’s Eighth Amendment claims
being heard in federal court, Mr. Dailey’s failure to advance this litigation, his failure to comply
with the second order to show cause, his failure to provide timely notification to this Court of his
address during the pendency of this action, and his failure to seek a timely reopening after the
Court’s order of dismissal all weigh in favor of the Court’s decision to dismiss this matter to
avoid docket congestion with a lingering case.
In sum, Mr. Dailey’s case has been subject to two show cause orders that notified him
that his case could be subject to dismissal if he did not prosecute his case. Nevertheless, Mr.
Dailey failed to update the Court of his address and failed to take steps to advance his claims in
this Court. Thus, the record in this case shows no indication that a lesser sanction than dismissal
would be sufficient to prompt Mr. Dailey to comply with the Court's orders or to prosecute his
case with diligence in the future.
Accordingly, the Court finds no error in its prior order because consideration of the five
factors all weigh in favor of dismissal of this matter.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 1st day of February, 2022.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5