Nance v. City of New York

Background

Allen Travell Nance, an inmate at Fishkill Correctional Facility when he filed the action, brought this case without a lawyer. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments at Bellevue Hospital and other medical facilities.

On September 24, 2019, the court issued an order directing service of the case, dismissing some claims with leave to amend, and ordering Nance to amend his complaint and provide additional information to the defendants. The order and an information packet were mailed to him on September 26, 2019.

Procedural History

In January 2020, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because Nance had not amended his complaint, provided contact information, or otherwise participated after his release from incarceration in September 2019. They relied on Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or an order.

The court initially declined to dismiss the case because Nance had been released before the service order was mailed and his failure to participate had lasted only three months. The court instead stayed the defendants’ deadline to respond and directed them to make reasonable efforts to locate Nance’s address and notify him about the case. The defendants later reported that they had located his address and served the court’s order there. They renewed their request for dismissal in June 2020.

On September 23, 2020, the court issued an order requiring Nance to explain by October 23 why the case should not be dismissed. The order warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal. Nance did not respond.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied five factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order: the length of the plaintiff’s failure, whether the plaintiff received notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the defendants, the court’s interest in managing its docket compared with the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be effective.

The court found that every factor favored dismissal. Nance had not amended his complaint or otherwise participated in prosecuting the case since August 12, 2019—a period of more than fifteen months. He had received a specific warning that failing to respond to the order to show cause would lead to dismissal. The court stated that prejudice to the defendants could be presumed from unreasonable delay and found Nance’s delay substantial and unexcused. His failure to participate also left the court without an operative complaint and required the defendants and the court to take steps to locate him. Finally, the court found no reason to believe that a lesser sanction would produce a different result.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Nance. The order was signed by Judge Analisa Torres.