Randolph v. DOCCS

Background

Edward Randolph, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted claims alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause.

Randolph appeared at a status conference on October 25, 2021, and told the court that he was in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction at Rikers Island. He then failed to appear at conferences on January 13 and February 2, 2022. After appearing at conferences on February 18, March 23, and May 13, 2022, he failed to appear at six consecutive later conferences, including those held on June 27, July 21, September 1, September 22, November 9, and December 12, 2022.

The court repeatedly warned Randolph that continued failures to appear could lead to a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The rescheduling orders were mailed to his address of record, and the opinion states that none of the mailings was returned. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on October 25, 2022, and served it on Randolph at that address. Randolph did not oppose the motion or contact the court by the deadline.

Report and recommendation

Judge Krause recommended granting the defendants’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to diligently pursue a case. Neither party filed objections to the recommendation by the January 23, 2023 deadline.

Court’s analysis

Because there were no timely objections, Judge Roman reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than reconsidering the matter from the beginning. The court found no clear error. It concluded that dismissal was supported by five considerations: Randolph’s delay was significant; he had been warned that further delay could lead to dismissal; further delay would likely prejudice the defendants; the court’s interest in managing its docket outweighed giving Randolph more time; and dismissal was an appropriate sanction.

The court emphasized that Randolph had not prosecuted the case since February 2022, had missed multiple conferences, and had not provided current contact information despite being told of his obligation to do so. It also stated that the events underlying the case occurred in July 2014 and that additional delay could prejudice the defendants. Because Randolph had not provided a reliable way for the court to contact him, the court concluded that no sanction less than dismissal would be effective.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted Judge Krause’s report and recommendation in its entirety, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion, terminate the case, and mail the order to Randolph at his last known address on the docket.