Dinkins v. Gustave

Background

Shaquille Dinkins, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, Captain Gustave, Captain Mitchell, Correction Officers Humphries, Young, and Mayo. He alleged that on March 1, 2019, while he was a pretrial detainee at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, Correction Officer Young grabbed his genitals during a body search. Dinkins further alleged that, after he asked Captain Mitchell to remove Young, Correction Officer Humphries and other officers bent his arms and punched his lower back. He also alleged that he was held in a cell without furnishings for about five hours, kept handcuffed behind his back for about 30 minutes, developed chest pains, and was denied medical attention by Correction Officer Mayo.

The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on most claims but denying it on the sexual-abuse claim against Young and a proposed failure-to-intervene claim against Captain Mitchell related to that alleged abuse. The defendants objected to the proposed failure-to-intervene claim and also asked the court to dismiss any remaining claims because Dinkins had not filed a notice of his address change or responded to the court.

Summary-Judgment Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in part and declined to adopt it in part. It agreed that the complaint did not plead a failure-to-intervene claim against Captain Mitchell concerning Young’s alleged sexual abuse. The court also stated that, even assuming such a claim had been pleaded, summary judgment would be appropriate because the evidence did not show that Mitchell had a realistic opportunity to stop the alleged abuse.

The court relied on Dinkins’s deposition testimony that he could not see Mitchell inside the search pen and did not believe anyone could see what Young was doing. Dinkins testified that, after he raised his voice, Mitchell arrived within seconds, asked what was happening, and directed Young to leave the search area. The court concluded that Mitchell intervened promptly and that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that he failed to intervene in connection with the alleged sexual abuse.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the excessive-force claims, the medical-needs and conditions-of-confinement claims, any failure-to-intervene claims, and all claims against the City of New York. It dismissed those claims with prejudice. The court denied the motion as to the sexual-abuse claim against Correction Officer Young, finding that material factual questions remained. The opinion therefore left that claim pending rather than resolving whether the alleged sexual abuse occurred or violated Dinkins’s rights.

Failure to Prosecute

The defendants also requested dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to follow court orders. The court considered Dinkins’s failure to provide an updated address for more than six months, but also noted that he had previously complied with address-reporting requirements, that the failure had not caused significant delay at that point, and that less severe sanctions were available.

The court denied without prejudice the request to dismiss the surviving claim under Rule 41(b). It ordered the parties to appear at a telephone conference on April 7, 2022, and warned that the defendants could renew their request if Dinkins failed to appear or otherwise notify the court that he intended to continue prosecuting the case, including by updating his address.