Davis v. Ramos
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-06419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Davis v. Ramos, Judge Ramos gave pro se plaintiff Michael Davis one final chance to respond to defendants’ dismissal motion by March 31, 2020.
Michael Davis was required to update his address and respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss by March 31, 2020; the defendants’ motion remained undecided.
What happened
Davis v. Ramos concerns Michael Davis’s claims that officials and the City of New York violated his constitutional rights after he slipped in a wheelchair-accessible shower and injured his shoulder. He also alleged that officials did not provide complete diagnostic scans or adequately respond to his pain and loss of arm use.
The defendants moved to dismiss the case, but Davis did not respond. Court mail was returned after Davis was transferred to another prison, and he had not provided an updated address as required. The court therefore gave him one final opportunity to respond by March 31, 2020.
Judge Ramos did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of Davis’s claims. The order warned that failing to respond could lead to consequences, including treating the motion as fully submitted or dismissing the case.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Ramos · No. 1:19-cv-06419
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
Michael Davis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against Raul Ramos, Christopher LaRosa, and the City of New York. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments through conduct connected to wheelchair-accessible showers and his medical treatment. Specifically, he claimed that the showers created a safety hazard that caused him to slip, fall, and injure his right shoulder. He also alleged that the defendants refused to give him a complete scan of diagnostic tests on his arm for more than 14 months and ignored his complaints of pain and reduced use of the arm. The claims were brought under a federal civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Motion and notice problems
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Davis did not respond. The court ordered him to respond by December 13, 2019, and directed that the order be mailed to him. After Davis again failed to respond, the court denied the defendants’ request to treat the motion as fully submitted and extended Davis’s deadline to January 29, 2020.
The clerk then informed the court that the earlier order had been returned as undeliverable because Davis had been transferred to another state prison and had no forwarding address. The court noted that Davis had been told that he was responsible for updating his address and that failing to do so could result in dismissal. The opinion states, based on information and records from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, that Davis was residing at Woodbourne Correctional Facility as of October 29, 2019. Davis had not provided the court with an updated address.
Order
The court gave Davis one final opportunity to pursue the case. It directed him to respond to the motion to dismiss by March 31, 2020. The court warned that ignoring the order could lead to sanctions, including treating the motion to dismiss as fully submitted or dismissing the case. The order directed the clerk to mail a copy to Davis at the Woodbourne facility.
The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss, did not dismiss the case, and did not decide whether Davis’s constitutional claims were legally valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.