Mylan v. Santos

Background

Jarrod Mylan filed this action alleging that the defendants used excessive force to remove him from the Vincent C. Bain Center of the Rikers Island Prison Complex after he refused transportation to a state correctional facility. Mylan proceeded without a lawyer.

The court initially ordered the defendants to help identify people named in Mylan’s complaint. After the defendants could not identify a nurse, the court allowed them to serve limited written questions on Mylan seeking more information. Mylan did not answer those questions. He later filed an amended complaint naming Captain Julissa Santos, Correction Officers Anthony Dapolito, Phillipe Jackson, Rosanna Padilla, Michelle Rodriguez, Joseph Fina, and Smerlin Montero, along with “Nurse Jane Doe.” The court dismissed Nurse Jane Doe on October 7, 2019, for failure to prosecute.

After stays and extensions related to an internal investigation and the COVID-19 pandemic, the court entered a case management plan in August 2020. The defendants later reported that Mylan had not responded to their discovery requests. On January 22, 2021, the court ordered Mylan to respond by February 12, 2021. The defendants sought medical-record and psychotherapy-note releases, answers to written questions, and information about Mylan’s injury, treatment, and treatment providers.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), which permits dismissal when a party disobeys a discovery order, and Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case. They argued that Mylan had not complied with the January 22 order and had failed to participate in discovery.

Mylan did not respond to the motion. The court had warned him that failing to respond could result in dismissal. The record also showed that he had not communicated with the court or participated in discovery for approximately nine months after the case management plan, and that he had not provided an explanation for his failure to comply. The court found no indication that he had not received the January 22 order; the court had mailed it to the address he provided, and no mail had been returned as undeliverable.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that dismissal was warranted under Rule 37 because Mylan failed to obey the January 22 discovery order for more than three months. In applying the relevant factors, the court considered the length of the noncompliance, the lack of an explanation, the importance of the requested information to the defendants’ ability to investigate and defend the excessive-force claim, Mylan’s earlier failure to answer discovery, the warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, and the absence of an adequate lesser sanction.

The court alternatively held that dismissal was warranted under Rule 41 for failure to prosecute. It found that Mylan’s delay was significant, that he had received notice of the possible consequence, that further delay would prejudice the defendants because they could not obtain discovery or depose him, and that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rules 37 and 41. The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk to adjourn all pending conferences and deadlines, and directed the Clerk to close the case.