Santana v. Doe

Background

Fernando Santana, who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under Section 1983 against Officer MD Rhaman, Officer Alberto Padilla, and John Doe, identified in the caption as a front desk officer. The court had ordered the City’s Law Department to identify John Doe defendants and had directed Santana to file amended complaints after those identifications. After the City identified additional defendants, Santana did not file the required third amended complaint.

Magistrate Judge Gorenstein later extended Santana’s deadline and warned that failing to file could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Santana did not file the third amended complaint and did not respond to a subsequent order asking him to explain the failure. The court’s records showed that the relevant orders were mailed to the address Santana had provided and were not returned as undeliverable.

Recommendation and Review

Judge Gorenstein recommended dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The recommendation relied on Santana’s extended failure to comply with court orders, the warnings he received, the likely prejudice from further delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket, and the conclusion that a lesser sanction would not be effective.

No party filed objections to the recommendation. Judge Gardephe therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full new review of the disputed issues. He found the recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and free of clear error.

Disposition

Judge Gardephe adopted Judge Gorenstein’s recommendation in its entirety. The case was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b), and the Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Santana and close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying Section 1983 claims.