Luckey v. Jonas

Background

Jeremiah Luckey, who was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility, brought this action on September 5, 2018. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to protect him from inmates throwing objects and liquids at him. Luckey was representing himself.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on February 2, 2019. After Luckey did not respond, the court extended his response time because he had changed facilities and had not updated his address. On September 4, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court also warned Luckey that failing to respond to court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case.

Failure to Participate

The defendants served Luckey with discovery requests under Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on March 2, 2020. They later sent him a proposed protective order and requested responses to the discovery. During an August 24, 2020 telephone call, Luckey said that he could not read, could not respond to the discovery requests or understand the proposed protective order, and did not want to continue litigating his claims at that time.

After the court directed the defendants to serve Luckey with information about voluntary dismissal procedures, the defendants mailed him the court’s order on September 24, 2020. Luckey declined a scheduled call on October 8, 2020, stating that he no longer wished to participate. The defendants then moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or orders.

The court issued an order requiring Luckey to show why the case should not be dismissed. Luckey did not respond within the specified time.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied five factors used to decide whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) was appropriate: the duration of the plaintiff’s failures, whether the plaintiff was warned 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 lesser sanction could work.

The court found that all five factors favored dismissal. More than two years had passed during which Luckey had not responded to court orders or discovery requests, had stated that he no longer wished to participate, and had avoided the defendants’ calls. The court had warned him that failing to respond to the order to show cause would result in dismissal. The court presumed prejudice from the delay and also noted that the defendants had incurred costs trying to locate and speak with him. The court concluded that Luckey’s noncompliance had stalled the case during discovery and that lesser sanctions would not likely be effective given his stated desire to stop participating.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres held that dismissal was appropriate. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and ordered that a copy of the order be mailed to Luckey, who was representing himself. The opinion did not decide whether Luckey’s Fourteenth Amendment allegations were legally valid.