Lax v. DOC Rikers Island Rose M. Singer Center and Staff

Background

Dominique Lax brought this action while detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. She told the court that she had been transferred between that facility and Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Hospital. The opinion does not explain the substance of her claims.

After Lax was released from the custody of the New York City Department of Correction, the court noted that she had not provided a current address. On April 5, 2023, the court ordered her to state whether she intended to continue the case and, if so, to provide a current mailing address or agree to electronic service. The court warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. Lax did not respond.

Reasoning

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to follow a court order, treating the failure as a failure to prosecute. The court considered the relevant factors, including the length of the delay, notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its cases, and whether a less severe remedy would work.

The court found that the delay was short and that the defendants had not yet been served, so those considerations weighed against dismissal. But Lax’s failure to respond and the court’s inability to send her orders by mail or electronically favored dismissal. The court also found that her failure to provide an address or respond constituted reasonable fault, although it could not say that she acted intentionally or in bad faith.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Lax’s complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The dismissal does not bar Lax from refiling her claims within the applicable limitations period. She may also move within a reasonable time to restore the case to the calendar; a motion filed within 120 days will be treated as presumptively filed within a reasonable time if it includes an address for service or consent to electronic service.

The court denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court did not decide the merits of Lax’s underlying claims.