Adkins v. City of New York

Background

Felipe Adkins, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights case under Section 1983 against the City of New York and Security Captain Dominique Harris of the Brooklyn Detention Complex. He alleged that his civil rights were violated while he was detained at the Brooklyn Detention Complex and the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island.

The case began in April 2019. The court treated the original complaint as asserting claims against the City rather than the New York City Department of Correction. The City moved to dismiss. On March 3, 2020, Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Freeman’s recommendation, dismissed Adkins’s claims against the City, and allowed him to amend the complaint to replead particular claims. Adkins never amended the complaint.

Failure to Participate in the Case

Adkins was released from custody in 2019. He did not appear for a scheduled deposition in January 2020 and again failed to appear after the deposition was rescheduled. Defense counsel reported repeated unsuccessful efforts to contact him and arrange a deposition, including efforts to conduct it remotely during the COVID-19 public-health crisis.

The court repeatedly extended or adjusted discovery deadlines and warned Adkins that continued failure to appear for the deposition or otherwise prosecute the case could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed. In June 2020, the court allowed the deposition to occur by July 16, 2020, but counsel reported that Adkins did not cooperate sufficiently to complete it. The case then remained dormant for more than a year.

In January 2022, the court directed the defendants to make reasonable efforts to contact Adkins and provide a status report. Defense counsel reported that Adkins did not respond to an overnight letter or three telephone messages. Adkins filed no response.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it. The court considered the duration of Adkins’s noncompliance, the warnings he received, the likely prejudice to the defendants, the court’s interest in managing its docket, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

Magistrate Judge Freeman concluded that these factors supported dismissal. The case had been inactive for more than a year; Adkins had repeatedly failed to appear for or arrange his deposition; he had not responded to defense counsel or the court; the defendants could not meaningfully defend the case without contacting or deposing him; and a lesser sanction appeared unlikely to be effective. The court considered Adkins’s status as a self-represented litigant but determined that he should receive an additional opportunity to be heard before dismissal.

Order

The court ordered Adkins to show cause in writing, no later than April 4, 2022, why Magistrate Judge Freeman should not recommend that Judge Daniels dismiss the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The response was to explain any problems affecting his ability to prosecute the case, communicate with defense counsel, or attend a deposition.

This order did not itself dismiss the case. It directed the Clerk to mail the order to Adkins and directed defense counsel to mail it to any other address for Adkins that counsel later learned about.