Lassiter v. NYC Dept. of Corrections Medical Depts.

Background

Carroll Lassiter sued Dr. Okvunduh Okene and other defendants. The court had also required Lassiter to address his failure to timely serve NYC Health+Hospitals, referred to as H+H, and to provide a correct address for that defendant. On July 5, 2023, the court ordered Lassiter to submit a letter addressing those issues by July 19, 2023.

Lassiter did not submit the letter. The court later learned that its mailed order had been returned because Lassiter had been discharged from the Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center and had not provided a new address. The court’s pro se information package had told Lassiter that he was responsible for reporting address changes and warned that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

The court gave Lassiter additional opportunities on August 8 and September 11, 2023, to appear and provide an updated address. Those orders warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal without prejudice. Lassiter did not appear, provide an updated address, request more time to serve H+H, show good cause for failing to serve H+H on time, or provide H+H’s correct address.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court orders. The court considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s noncompliance, whether the plaintiff was warned about dismissal, likely prejudice to defendants from further delay, the balance between court docket management and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.

The court found that all five factors supported dismissal. Lassiter had ignored three court orders and had received multiple warnings that noncompliance could result in dismissal without prejudice. The court stated that prejudice could be presumed from lengthy and unjustified delay and found that Lassiter had taken no steps to advance the case despite the court’s repeated directives.

The court also determined that dismissal was appropriate after balancing docket management against Lassiter’s right to be heard. It had already given him another chance to comply by appearing and providing an updated address, which the court viewed as a less severe alternative to dismissal. The court concluded that Lassiter appeared to have abandoned the litigation.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.