Cuffee Jr. v. Gonzalez

Background

Hiawatha Cuffee Jr. brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against Officer Gonzalez, Officer Squillaro, and the City of New York. He was representing himself. The case had been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman for general supervision before trial. Defense counsel repeatedly asked the court to recommend dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b), asserting that Cuffee had disobeyed discovery orders and failed to prosecute the case.

The court had previously declined to recommend dismissal, finding that the defense requests were insufficiently supported or too broad and recognizing Cuffee’s history of making good-faith efforts, despite lapses, to pursue the case. The court also noted that Cuffee’s housing situation appeared to have become unstable.

Contact information and possible dismissal

Cuffee told defense counsel in December 2020 that he no longer lived at the address listed on the docket and provided another address. He did not file a formal change-of-address notice with the court. Mail sent to the provided address was returned as undeliverable, although Cuffee later used that same address as his return address.

The court ordered Cuffee, by November 12, 2021, to file either a change-of-address form listing an address where he could receive mail or a form consenting to receive court notices electronically. If he filed neither form, the court would assume that he no longer wished to pursue the case and would recommend that the action be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the case.

Discovery issues

The court addressed three remaining discovery matters from an October 2020 conference.

First, the court found Cuffee in compliance regarding an authorization for the release of medical records from Dr. Ronald Chase. Defense counsel had initially maintained that Cuffee had not provided a usable authorization, but later stated that the case file appeared to contain a fully executed release and apologized for the mistaken representation.

Second, the court had required Cuffee to provide an authorization for records from Pinnacle Electric and documents showing when he began working for Lincoln Tech and Hostos Community College and how much he was paid by each. The court found that the Pinnacle release had been provided, but the available information indicated that Cuffee had not supplied the Lincoln and Hostos employment and pay information. The court found that information relevant to his claimed lost-income damages.

If Cuffee did not provide the Lincoln and Hostos information by November 12, the court would recommend that he be barred at trial from seeking lost-income damages after the date he stopped working for Apex, or another date shown by the records. The court would also recommend allowing the jury, but not requiring it, to draw an adverse inference—an unfavorable conclusion—from the missing pay information, including a possible conclusion that the information would have shown earnings at least as high as Cuffee’s prior earnings at Pinnacle.

Third, the court had directed Cuffee to submit emails exchanged with Messiah Bey for confidential court review. The court would use that review to determine whether the communications were relevant and had to be produced to the defendants. Cuffee had not made the submission. By November 12, he was required either to file a statement confirming that he had conducted a good-faith search and found no related emails or to mail the emails to the court for confidential review. If he did neither, the court would recommend a $100 payment to defense counsel for part of the legal fees incurred in seeking the communications. The court found that a larger award or another sanction would be unjust under the circumstances.

Missed conferences and disposition

Cuffee had missed several conferences, but the court declined to impose an additional sanction on that basis. The court considered his appearance at the October 2020 conference, the timing of his apparent housing problems, and his later explanation that he had missed a June 2021 telephone conference because his phone was lost.

The court ordered that discovery would be considered closed except for the Lincoln and Hostos information and the emails involving Mr. Bey. It warned that it did not expect to grant extensions of the November 12 deadline. If Cuffee failed to comply, the court would recommend the specified sanctions and recommend that the case proceed to final dispositive motions or trial. The opinion is an order setting conditions and warning of possible recommendations; it does not state that the case was dismissed or that the proposed sanctions were imposed at that time.