Ortiz v. Orange County

Background

Six plaintiffs who are or were civil immigration detainees at the Orange County Jail in Goshen, New York, brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against Orange County and three county officials. Their claims principally alleged that the defendants retaliated against them for complaining about poor conditions in immigration detention facilities.

Plaintiff Nahum Gilberto Ortiz died. Defense counsel notified the court on February 27, 2025. The court later extended the deadline for substituting a party for Ortiz to August 26, 2025. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not file a substitution motion by that deadline. After the court directed counsel either to comply or seek another extension, counsel reported that, despite efforts to contact Ortiz’s potential legal successors, counsel could not file a substitution motion. Defendants then moved to dismiss Ortiz’s claim with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). The motion was unopposed.

Legal standard

Rule 25(a)(1) provides that if a motion to substitute a party is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the party’s death, the action by or against the deceased party must be dismissed. The rule does not specify whether dismissal must be with or without prejudice, and the court explained that it gives courts flexibility to choose the form of dismissal that fits the circumstances. In a multi-party case, the action may continue for the remaining parties when the right being enforced survives only for or against them.

Ruling

The court concluded that Ortiz’s claim had to be dismissed because no substitution motion had been filed after the deadline expired. But the court declined to dismiss the claim with prejudice. It found that the intentions of Ortiz’s potential successors were uncertain and that Ortiz’s counsel and those potential successors had not engaged in conduct warranting the harsher form of dismissal. The court also found that defendants would not face substantial prejudice from dismissal without prejudice.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti therefore granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion. The court dismissed Ortiz’s claim against the defendants without prejudice, instructed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and terminated Nahum Gilberto Ortiz as a plaintiff in the case. This order did not resolve the merits of the retaliation claims or rule on the other plaintiffs’ claims.