Broadnax v. Hallet
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-02926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Broadnax v. Hallet: Judge Broderick ordered a status letter about five unserved defendants by May 23, warning of dismissal for noncompliance.
Cleveland Broadnax and defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin.
What happened
In Broadnax v. Hallet, Cleveland Broadnax sued Warden Michelle Hallet and others. The New York City Department of Correction reported problems identifying or serving five defendants—Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin—and those defendants had not answered.
The court had previously ordered Broadnax to say whether he wanted to continue the case against those five defendants and whether he needed help identifying them. The order states that he did not comply with that order.
The court ordered Broadnax to submit the required status letter by May 23, 2022, and to voluntarily dismiss the five defendants if he did not intend to continue against them. Judge Broderick warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of those defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Broadnax v. Hallet · No. 1:21-cv-02926
- Vernon Broderick
- May 9, 2022
Background
Cleveland Broadnax filed the complaint on April 5, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the New York City Department of Correction filed an unexecuted waiver of service for Warden Michelle Hallet and defendants Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin. The Department reported that Hallet was no longer employed by the agency, that there was no Deputy Sanchez at Anna M. Kross Center, that it found no matches for Sans, and that multiple officers matched the names Grant, Vincent, and Lubin.
Former Warden Hallet and the other defendants who had appeared filed an answer on March 17, 2022. Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin had not answered as of the order.
Court’s Prior Directive
Because Broadnax was representing himself, the court explained that it could assist him in identifying a defendant. On April 4, 2022, the court ordered him to submit a letter by April 22 stating whether he intended to continue pursuing the case against Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin and whether he wanted the court’s help identifying them. If he did not intend to pursue the case against those defendants, the court directed him to voluntarily dismiss them by filing a notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
The order states that Broadnax did not comply with the April 4 order and filed a letter indicating the status of the litigation.
Ruling
The court ordered Broadnax to submit another status letter by May 23, 2022, addressing whether he intended to continue the case against Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin and whether he requested assistance identifying them. If he did not intend to continue against those defendants, he was ordered to voluntarily dismiss them under Rule 41(a)(1)(A).
The court warned that if Broadnax failed to comply, Sanchez, Grant, Vincent, Sans, and Lubin would be dismissed under Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to follow a court order. The court did not dismiss those defendants in this order. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Broadnax.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.