Santana v. Gravagna

Background

Altagracia Santana, Daisy Cabrera, and Genesis Cabrera brought claims under federal civil-rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. They alleged that their constitutional rights were violated in connection with proceedings in New York City Housing Court that culminated in their eviction from a Bronx apartment. The opinion identifies the plaintiffs as representing themselves.

The defendants included Gus Gravagna, Angel Matias, Alan Bernstein, and Della DeKay, along with other defendants. The other defendants filed motions to dismiss or, in the case of the Hertz defendants and a defendant who joined their motion, a motion for summary judgment. On February 23, 2023, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the claims against those moving defendants for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The court noted that Gravagna, Matias, and Bernstein had not answered or otherwise moved in response to the complaint, while DeKay had answered but had not moved to dismiss. The court nevertheless directed the plaintiffs to show cause—that is, explain—why their claims against these four remaining defendants should not also be dismissed. The court initially set a March 17, 2023 deadline, then extended it to May 2, 2023 at the plaintiffs’ request.

Failure to Prosecute

The plaintiffs did not respond to the show-cause directive and took no action in the case after their March 16, 2023 extension request. The Clerk mailed the March 21 order to the plaintiffs, but the mail was returned to sender.

Under Rule 41(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with a court order. The court evaluated the relevant factors, including the length of the delay, whether the plaintiffs had notice that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the court’s interest in managing its docket, the plaintiffs’ opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the show-cause order and had taken no action for more than nine months. It also found that prior orders expressly warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal. Possible prejudice to the four remaining defendants was treated as a neutral factor because they had not joined the other defendants’ dismissal motions. The court found that docket-management concerns favored dismissal and that lesser sanctions would be ineffective because the plaintiffs had not responded to the court’s orders.

Disposition

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ remaining claims against Gus Gravagna, Angel Matias, Alan Bernstein, and Della DeKay for failure to prosecute. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.