Opinion
22-CV-62
01-17-2024
JESSIE J. BARNES, Plaintiff, v. STACY DOMINIC, et al., Defendants.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON. CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 2024
THE COURT: As set forth above, defendants filed their motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute on June 15, 2023. Docket No. 68. Plaintiff's response deadline, after numerous deadline extensions, was December 18, 2023. Docket No. 87. Plaintiff failed to timely file a response by that deadline.
On January 10, 2024, the Court reviewed the docket to see if plaintiff had filed a response to this motion. He had not.
On January 11, 2024, the Court placed this decision on the record. After placing this decision on the record, the Court again reviewed the docket. At that time, the Court noted that a response had been filed by the plaintiff on January 10, 2024, and placed on the docket on January 11, 2024. Docket No. 88.
Plaintiff's response is clearly untimely. On December 6 of 2023, this Court issued a text order extending plaintiff's response deadline until December 18, 2023, and advised that no further extension would be granted. Docket No. 87.
As plaintiff is proceeding pro se and showing plaintiff special solicitude, the Court has reviewed and considered plaintiff's untimely response. The response is 87 pages in length. Docket No. 88. The first three pages of the response are directed to the alleged bias of the Court and fail to address in any substantive fashion the issues raised in the motion to dismiss. Docket No. 88 at 1 through 3. The response also includes a copy of plaintiff's letter filed April 26, 2023 Docket No. 57-1.
Plaintiff's response includes a copy of the 2021 session laws of New York legislature, memo chapter 93, McKinney's. Docket No. 88 at 7-9. That is followed by a document entitled Mid-State Correctional Facility orientation manual, step down guide to general population. Document 88 at 11-42. The response also includes a letter addressed to Chief Judge Sannes filed May 20, 2023. Docket No. 64. While the response contains each of these documents, it contains no discussion or explanation of how any or all of those documents relate to the pending motion to dismiss.
The response includes what appears to be a grievance filed by plaintiff at the Mid-State Correctional Facility dated May 23, 2023. Docket No. 88 at 47. The grievance relates to plaintiff's deposition on May 23 of 2023. That grievance was denied by the IGRC, finding that plaintiff was left in restraints per Department of Corrections and Community Supervision policy. Docket No. 88 at 48. Plaintiff filed an appeal for that decision. Docket No. 88 at 48.
Plaintiff's response includes a document labeled operation manual, step down to general population for the Mid-State Correctional Facility. Docket No. 88 at 52-83. A final document is a copy of a decision in Barnes versus Fischer, a 2015 decision in the Northern District of New York denying plaintiff's request to vacate a settlement agreement entered into by plaintiff.
The Court has reviewed the entirety of plaintiff's untimely response. That response is devoid of any direct response to the motion to dismiss or any indication that plaintiff will voluntarily participate in a deposition unless plaintiff gets to determine what restraints, if any, will be placed on plaintiff. As such, it continues to be the recommendation that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice.