Bennett v. Porter
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-03216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bennett v. Porter, Judge Broderick terminated the action after Bennett’s mail was returned and he did not update his address.
Dontae Bennett’s action was terminated after the court found that mail was returned as undeliverable and that he had apparently changed addresses without notifying the court. The defendants were affected because the case was terminated without the court reaching their motion or the merits of Bennett’s allegations.
What happened
Bennett v. Porter concerned Dontae Bennett’s claim that he received inadequate mental-health treatment during pretrial detention at the Anna M. Kross Center. Bennett was incarcerated and represented himself.
The court ordered Bennett to sign medical releases so the defendants could investigate his allegations. The mail containing those orders was returned as undeliverable, first because there was no such number and later because Bennett was not in the inmate system. Bennett did not notify the court of a new address.
The court said a person representing himself must keep the court and defendants informed of address changes and may face termination for failing to prosecute. Judge Broderick directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action and said he did not need to decide the defendants’ motion concerning Bennett’s failure to sign the releases.
The detailed version
- Bennett v. Porter · No. 1:23-cv-03216
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 16, 2024
Background
Dontae Bennett, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he received inadequate mental-health treatment while in pretrial detention at the Anna M. Kross Center. The court had extended the defendants’ response deadline. The defendants then informed the court that they needed Bennett to sign medical releases to investigate his allegations.
The court ordered Bennett to provide the releases by October 5, 2023, and warned that failing to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and 41(b). The mailing was returned with the notation “RTS - NO SUCH NUMBER - UNABLE TO FORWARD.” The court later ordered the defendants to mail the releases again and ordered Bennett to return signed copies by January 5, 2024. That mailing was also returned as undeliverable, marked “Inmate not in System.”
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that people representing themselves must notify the court and the defendants when their mailing address changes. It stated that, when such a litigant fails to keep the court informed of a current address, the action may be terminated under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Disposition
The court noted that the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute based on Bennett’s failure to sign the medical releases. The court said it did not need to reach that issue because Bennett’s address had apparently changed without notice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the action. The order did not decide whether Bennett’s mental-health-treatment allegations had merit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.