Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 9, 2020

Rutherford v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:18-cv-12049
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rutherford v. Captain Chris Thomalen, Judge Briccetti ordered pro se plaintiff Rutherford to update his address or face possible dismissal.

Who this affects

Rutherford was required to provide a current address by August 10, 2020; failure to comply could result in dismissal, and permission to appeal without paying fees was denied.

What happened

In Rutherford v. Captain Chris Thomalen, the plaintiff had repeatedly changed addresses, and court papers and a deposition notice were returned as undeliverable. The court noted that the plaintiff was responsible for notifying it of address changes.

The court ordered the plaintiff to provide his current address in writing by August 10, 2020. It warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to pursue the case or obey court orders.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rutherford v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · No. 7:18-cv-12049
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
July 9, 2020

Background

Rutherford, who was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying the case-filing fee, filed the action on December 20, 2018. The opinion states that he was incarcerated at the Westchester County Jail when he filed the complaint.

The court described multiple address changes reported by Rutherford between March 2019 and April 2020. The listed addresses included several correctional facilities, a street address in Valhalla, New York, and a mailing address in Poughkeepsie, New York. Rutherford also sent letters reporting later incarceration and arrest on a parole violation.

In July 2020, the court received notice that its revised discovery and scheduling order had been returned as undeliverable. Defense counsel also reported that a deposition notice mailed to Rutherford had been returned as undeliverable.

Order

The court explained that its prior service orders and its instructions for people without attorneys told Rutherford that he had to notify the court in writing whenever his address changed. Those materials also warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

The court ordered Rutherford to update his current address in writing by August 10, 2020. It stated that failure to comply with the order might result in dismissal for failure to pursue the action or comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The opinion does not say that the action was dismissed in this order.

Appeal and disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal-related filing fees. The court directed its chambers to mail a copy of the order to Rutherford at his last known address on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.