Gilmore v. Carey et al
Filing
60
DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that Defendant's # 40 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; # 42 Motion to Dismiss; and # 46 Motion to Dismiss are hereby DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 6/8/2016. {Copy sent to the pro se plaintiff by regular mail} (jmb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FURMAN GILMORE,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
1:15cv20
(TJM/DJS)
JOSEPH CAREY,
DEFENDANTS.
Thomas J. McAvoy
Senior United States Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss this case, brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See dkt. #s 40, 42, 46. Plaintif f, proceeding pro se, alleges that
Defendants assaulted and injured him while executing a search warrant at his
residence. See Complaint, dkt. # 1 (“Complt.”). Plaintiff avers that he suffered injuries
to his hands, fingers, legs, toes, chest and back as a result of Defendants’ conduct. Id.
at ¶ 38. The Court reviewed the Complaint and ordered United States Marshals to
serve it. See dkt. # 7. After being served with the Complaint, Defendants answered.
See dkt. #s 13, 17, 32. On July 22, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece
issued a pre-trial scheduling order. See dkt. # 37. That order, sent to Plaintiff’s last
known address–the Hudson Correctional Facility–was returned as undeliverable. See
dkt. # 39.
On September 24, 2015, noting that Plaintiff had failed to update his address as
required by Local Rule 10.1(c)(2), Defendants Auigar, Carey, Donn, Yannone, and
Youngblood filed a motion to dismiss. See dkt. # 40. The other Defendants sought
dismissal on the same grounds. See dkt. #s 42, 46. On October 26, 2015, the Plaintif f
wrote the Court requesting an adjournment of these motions. See dkt. # 49. The Clerk
of Court noted a new address for Plaintiff, the Columbia County Jail, and updated the
docket. Id. The Court also granted the Plaintiff’s request for additional time to answer
the motions. See dkt. # 50. Plaintiff responded to the motions by asserting that he had
provided the Court with his new address in a timely fashion. He provided two unsigned
and unsworn affidavits purportedly demonstrating such notice. See dkt. #s 51-1, 51-2.
Local Rule 10.1(c)(2) provides that “[a]ll attorneys of record and pro se
litigants must immediately notify the Court of any change of address.” L.R.
10.1(c)(2) (emphasis in original). The litigant is to provide notice to the Clerk of Court
and to the attorneys for the other parties. Id. A failure to follow this rule “may result in
the dismissal of any pending action.” L.R. 41.2(b). Likewise, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or
to comply with these rules or a court order.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Defendants contend
that Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice to the Court justifies dismissing the action.
“[D]ismissal is a harsh remedy and is appropriate only in extreme situations.”
Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996). A court “should be especially hesitant
to dismiss for procedural deficiencies where . . . the failure is by a pro se litigant.” Id.
Five factors govern a dismissal under Rule 41: “(1) the duration of the plaintiff’s failure
to comply with the court order, (2) whether plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply
2
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 judge had adequately considered a sanction less dramatic than dismissal.” Id.
“[N]o single factor is dispositive.
The Court finds that Defendants’ motions should be denied. The Court notes
that Plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed the instant action. He received leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and the Complaint was served with the assistance of the
Marshal’s service. Two orders sent to Plaintiff at Hudson Correctional Facility were
returned as undelieverable. Slightly more than one month after Defendants filed their
initial motions to dismiss, Plaintiff contacted the Court and the Clerk was able to correct
his address. He has since diligently participated in the case. The Court finds Plaintiff’s
delay in notifying the Court of his change of address excusable, especially considering
the fact that Plaintiff was incarcerated and took prompt action when he eventually heard
of Defendants’ efforts to dismiss the case. While Plaintiff should have been aware of
the need to inform the Court of his new address, nothing in the record indicates he
possessed the Local Rules during his incarceration. Most important, the Court is not
persuaded that any prejudice has come to the Defendants as a result of Plaintiff’s delay
in providing his change of address. Defendants were not left uninformed of the
allegations in the Complaint, nor were they left unable to research them or prepare a
defense. Though the events that gave rise to the action occurred more than three
years ago, the Defendants were informed of those claims within the statute of
limitations and have not been prevented from preparing a case. Finally, given that
3
Plaintiff is both incarcerated and proceeding pro se, dismissal of the case for failure to
inform the Defendants–law enforcement officials–of a change in his prison housing
would be an unduly harsh penalty.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions to dimiss, dkt. #s 40, 42,
and 46, are hereby DENIED.
Dated:June 8, 2016
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?