Hassan v. Johnson Doe

Background

Eslam Hassan, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental illness and used excessive force against him at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. His amended complaint remained the operative complaint.

On March 19, 2021, defendants moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On May 6, 2021, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang ordered Hassan to show cause in writing by June 30, 2021, why she should not recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. She also ordered him to respond to the City’s interrogatories by that date. Hassan did not submit the required explanation or respond to the interrogatories.

Report and Recommendation and Notice

On January 13, 2022, Judge Wang recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The Clerk mailed the recommendation to two addresses listed for Hassan. One mailing was returned as undeliverable, so the district court directed the Clerk to mail the recommendation to another previous address provided by Hassan. The court also asked defendants whether they had an alternative address or current contact information. Defendants reported that their last contact with Hassan was on September 30, 2021, and that they knew of no alternative address or current contact information beyond the information Hassan had provided to the court.

The recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days after service to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object. No objections were filed before the deadline. The court stated that the parties therefore waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Even so, the district court conducted an independent review rather than limiting its review to whether the recommendation contained clear error.

Ruling

The district court found the recommendation well reasoned and its conclusions well founded. Judge John P. Cronan adopted the recommendation in its entirety, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action in its entirety for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court additionally noted that dismissal was appropriate under Rule 41(b) because Hassan failed to comply with Judge Wang’s order requiring him to answer defendants’ interrogatories. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the case, and mail Hassan a copy of the order at the addresses specified by the court.