Ruiz v. Keratin Bar

Background

Angel Ruiz, a hairstylist, sued KeratinBar Inc. and 1976 Healthcare Inc., whom he described as his alleged former employers. He asserted employment-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and employment-discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and disability-accommodation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ruiz began the case without a lawyer and later retained counsel. The case became ready for trial, but the court postponed the trial in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and later continued the postponement indefinitely. In December 2020, the court allowed Ruiz’s lawyer to withdraw after a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

Proceedings After Counsel Withdrew

After his lawyer withdrew, Ruiz told the court that he could not find new counsel and was too ill to represent himself. He then took no action to advance the case for approximately two years. In March 2023, the court scheduled an in-person status conference to try to move the case toward trial, but canceled it after Ruiz said he could not attend.

The court later invited Ruiz to request help finding volunteer counsel. Ruiz made that request, but no lawyer volunteered to represent him. The court then ordered Ruiz to state whether he was ready for trial, had another reason the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or wanted to dismiss the action voluntarily.

Ruiz filed additional materials accusing his former lawyers and the judge of misconduct. He also said he planned to represent himself and wanted to try the case remotely because of his disability and his experience at the courthouse. The court denied the request for a remote trial and scheduled an in-person status conference for August 9, 2023, warning that failure to attend without a valid excuse could result in dismissal.

Ruiz did not attend the August 9 conference. He submitted medical materials, but the court determined that they did not provide credible, current evidence that he was medically unable to attend. The court noted that the most recent medical encounter record was from March 18, 2021, and that a July 19, 2023 note stated only that Ruiz had reported to a medical provider that his health conditions made him unable to travel.

Ruling

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or fails to comply with a court order. The court considered the length of Ruiz’s failure to act, the repeated warnings that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, the likely prejudice from further delay, the court’s interest in managing its docket, Ruiz’s interest in being heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be appropriate.

The court concluded that the case had been at a standstill since March 2020, that Ruiz had repeatedly failed to obey orders and appear for proceedings, and that he had not proposed a workable way to try the case. It also concluded that he had received adequate warnings and that his medical submissions did not justify his failure to attend.

The court DISMISSED the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It directed the clerk to close any open motions and close the case. The court had also directed the clerk to strike Ruiz’s purported third amended complaint because it was filed without permission and asserted a different action against new defendants; the court instructed Ruiz to file a separate action if he wished to pursue those allegations.