Mateo v. Westchester County

Nature of the materials

The provided text consists primarily of the defendants’ notice of motion and memorandum of law, together with a May 25, 2021 court endorsement directing Franklin Mateo to respond. It also includes a proposed order stating that the motion would be granted and the claims dismissed with prejudice, but that proposed order is not signed in the supplied text. The materials therefore do not establish that the court granted or denied the motion.

Background

Mateo brought the case without a lawyer and generally alleged that he received rotten, stale, undercooked, moldy, unsanitary, or cold food while he was a pretrial detainee at the Westchester County jail. The defendants named in the motion were Aramark Correctional Services, LLC; Manual Mendoza; Charles Butler; Coffey Kohli; Penny Stewart; Craig Boissy; Kevin Cheverko; and Westchester County.

The defendants’ memorandum says that an earlier court order granted their prior dismissal motion in part and denied it in part. According to that memorandum, the earlier order dismissed some claims and allowed certain Eighth Amendment claims and a claim against Westchester County and Aramark to continue. Mateo did not file an amended complaint by the stated deadline, and the case proceeded into discovery.

Defendants’ motion

The defendants moved under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule permits a defendant to seek dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or fails to comply with court rules or an order. The defendants argued that Mateo did not respond to written discovery and did not complete his deposition.

The memorandum states that Mateo’s deposition took place by remote video on May 10, 2021, with a Spanish interpreter arranged at his request. According to the quoted deposition testimony, Mateo stopped before answering substantive questions and repeatedly said that he did not want to continue the lawsuit. He also agreed when defense counsel asked whether he was withdrawing the lawsuit with prejudice, and said that he was acting freely and voluntarily.

The defendants argued that dismissal was appropriate based on the duration and willfulness of Mateo’s noncompliance, notice, prejudice to the defendants, the effect on the court’s docket, and the lack of a suitable lesser sanction. They requested dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the moving defendants.

Court action shown in the materials

On May 25, 2021, Judge Nelson Stephen Roman directed Mateo to respond to the defendants’ motion by June 15, 2021. The endorsement stated that if Mateo failed to oppose the motion on time, the motion would be resolved without opposition, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the endorsement to him.

The supplied materials do not contain a signed order deciding the motion. Accordingly, the court action shown here is a directive to respond, not a grant or denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.