Rutherford v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-12049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rayvon Rutherford v. Captain Chris Thomalen, Judge Briccetti ordered Rutherford to update his address by September 11, 2020, or face dismissal.
Rayvon Rutherford, who was required to provide a current address to avoid dismissal of his case; the case’s defendant, Captain Chris Thomalen, was also affected by the court’s case-management order.
What happened
Rayvon Rutherford v. Captain Chris Thomalen concerns Rutherford’s failure to keep the court informed of his current address while representing himself and receiving permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Several documents mailed to him were returned as undeliverable.
The court had previously ordered Rutherford to update his address by August 10, 2020, and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not comply. He did not update his address, so the court ordered him to provide his current address in writing by September 11, 2020.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal for failure to pursue the case or follow court orders. The order also denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order because the court certified that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Rutherford v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · No. 7:18-cv-12049
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
Rayvon Rutherford filed the action on December 20, 2018. The opinion states that he was incarcerated at the Westchester County Jail when he filed the complaint, was proceeding without a lawyer, and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Rutherford filed multiple notices of address changes during the case. The opinion lists addresses associated with the Suffolk County Correctional Facility, Ulster Correctional Facility, Westchester County Jail, Downstate Correctional Facility, Altona Correctional Facility, Dutchess County Jail, and a private address in Poughkeepsie. In March 2020, he also informed the court that he had been arrested on a parole violation.
Returned Mail and Prior Warning
The court received notice in July 2020 that a revised discovery plan and scheduling order mailed to Rutherford had been returned as undeliverable. Defense counsel also reported that a deposition notice mailed to Rutherford had been returned.
On July 9, 2020, the court ordered Rutherford to provide his current address in writing by August 10, 2020. The court warned, in bold and underlined text, that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to pursue the case or comply with court orders. The court stated that earlier service orders, an instructions pamphlet for people without lawyers, and a blank address-change form had likewise informed Rutherford of his responsibility to report address changes.
Order
The court found that Rutherford had not updated his address. It therefore ordered him to update the court in writing by September 11, 2020. The court stated that failure to comply with this order would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to pursue the case or comply with court orders. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed in this order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Rutherford permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Chambers was directed to mail a copy of the order to Rutherford at his last known docket address.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.