Opinion
2:18 CV 2817 (PKC)(RML)
12-14-2023
ROHAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT M. LEVY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff pro se Rohan Johnson (“plaintiff”) commenced this action on May 2, 2028, naming as defendants the United States, County of Nassau, County of Nassau Treasurer, County of Suffolk, County of Suffolk Treasurer, New York State Comptroller, State of New York, Suffolk County Police Commissioner, Suffolk County Police Department, and Suffolk County Sheriff. (See Complaint, filed May 2, 2018, Dkt. No. 1.) By Memorandum and Order dated April 1, 2019, the Honorable Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States District Judge, dismissed the complaint as “unintelligible,” with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (See Memorandum and Order, dated Apr. 1, 2019, Dkt. No. 11, at 2.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2019, naming as defendants County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Police Department, and John Does 1-100. (See Amended Complaint, filed May 1, 2019, Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 6, 2019, naming as defendants County of Suffolk, State of New York, Suffolk County Police Department, and John Does 1-100. (See Second Amended Complaint, filed May 6, 2019, Dkt. No. 14.)
By Memorandum and Order dated November 20, 2019, Judge Mauskopf dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), with leave to file a third and final amended complaint within thirty days. (See Memorandum and Order, dated Nov. 20, 2019, Dkt. No. 22.) On March 2, 2020, after requesting and receiving extensions of time, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, naming as defendants County of Suffolk, Police Officer Brian Metty, and John Doe Officers 1-10. (See Third Amended Complaint, filed Mar. 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 25.)
I then conducted a number of conferences and the parties engaged in discovery and settlement discussions until March 2023, when plaintiff was advised that he would be required to sign HIPAA releases in order for his claims to proceed. (See Minute Entry, dated Mar. 6, 2023; see also Minute Entry, dated May 10, 2023.) Due to various family and health issues, plaintiff then requested and received a number of extensions and adjournments. On October 18, 2023, the court again directed plaintiff to send a signed HIPAA release to defendants' counsel, and advised him that his failure to do so would likely result in sanctions. (See Minute Entry, dated Oct. 18, 2023.) My order also scheduled a conference for November 20, 2023 and requested that defendants' counsel inform plaintiff of the date and time. (Id.) Defendants' counsel confirmed that this was done. (See Certificate of Service, dated Oct. 18, 2023, Dkt. No. 69) (stating that plaintiff was informed via email of “the date, time and call-in information (including the phone number and access code) for the next teleconference scheduled for November 20, 2023 at 3:30 pm”).
On November 20, 2023, defendants' counsel appeared, but plaintiff did not. Nor did plaintiff request an adjournment or contact defendants' counsel regarding the HIPAA release. (See Minute Entry, dated Nov. 20, 2023.) It has now been over nine months since the court directed plaintiff to provide a signed HIPAA release, and six months since plaintiff last appeared for a court conference. Attempts to reach him have been unsuccessful. It therefore appears that plaintiff has abandoned this case, and I am constrained to recommend that it be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Defendants' counsel is directed to serve a copy of this report and recommendation on plaintiff by first-class mail and email, and to file proof of service within three (3) days. Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days. Failure to file objections in a timely manner may waive a right to appeal the district court's order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(d), 72.