Opinion
6:17-CV-06560 EAW
2021-11-29
Theodore BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Sergeant A. HECHT and Corrections Officers John Does 1-5, Defendants.
Theodore Brown, Binghamton, NY, Pro Se.
Theodore Brown, Binghamton, NY, Pro Se.
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge
Pro se plaintiff Theodore Brown ("Plaintiff"), an inmate presently confined at Broome County Correctional Facility, filed this action asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights by prison officials. (Dkt. 1; Dkt. 5; Dkt. 8). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reopen his case. (Dkt. 19). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Plaintiff filed this action on August 11, 2017. (Dkt. 1). The Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor person and screened the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. (Dkt. 4). Plaintiff's claims against New York State, Wyoming County, and Defendants in their official capacities were dismissed with prejudice, and he was granted leave to replead the remaining claims. (Id. ).
Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint (Dkt. 5), which was followed by a second amended complaint (Dkt. 8). The Court construed the second amended complaint as supplementing the first amended complaint and reviewed both pleadings jointly under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. (Dkt. 9). On November 21, 2019, the Court issued a Decision and Order permitting Plaintiff's failure to protect claims against defendants Hecht and John Does 1-5 to proceed to service, but dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's failure to protect claims against defendants Annucci and Noeth. (Id. ). The Court likewise denied as moot Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to amend the complaint (Dkt. 6), and also denied Plaintiff's motion to stay the case (Dkt. 7). (Dkt. 9). Copies of the Court's November 21, 2019 Decision and Order and the judgment were mailed to Plaintiff at his address on the docket (see Dkt. 9; Dkt. 10), but they were returned as undeliverable (Dkt. 11; Dkt. 12). The docket reflects that Plaintiff's address was updated, and the documents were re-sent to him at his new address at Auburn Correctional Facility. (See Dkt. 11).
Thereafter, on January 9, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause, noting that Plaintiff was released on parole on September 26, 2019, the Court did not have his current address as required by the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and directing Plaintiff to provide the Court with an address where papers may be served within 45 days. (Dkt. 13). The order to show cause also explained that if Plaintiff failed to provide an address by that date, his case would be dismissed with prejudice, without further order of the Court. (Id. at 2). The docket reflects that the order to show cause was mailed to Plaintiff (see Dkt. 13) but it was returned as undeliverable on January 16, 2020 (Dkt. 14; Dkt 15), and Plaintiff did not update his address or otherwise respond to the order to show cause. On April 17, 2020, the Clerk of Court issued a judgment dismissing Plaintiff's case with prejudice. (Dkt. 17). The docket reflects that the judgment was mailed to Plaintiff (see id. ), but it was returned as undeliverable on April 27, 2020 (Dkt. 18).
Thereafter, on August 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen his case. (Dkt. 19). In his motion, Plaintiff explains that he was "under the impression that ... everything stopped" due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he received the judgment dismissing his case with prejudice on April 17, 2020, and he was released from Auburn on September 26, 2019, after which he had five different addresses. (Id. ).
As to Plaintiff's contention that he had several addresses after he was released on parole, it is Plaintiff's responsibility to keep his address current with the Court. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) requires that, for pro se litigants, "[t]he Court must have a current address at all times. Thus, a pro se litigant must inform the Court immediately, in writing, of any change of address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case, with prejudice." L. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d). In other words, the Local Rules are clear that it is Plaintiff's responsibility to keep his address current with the Court, and the fact that Plaintiff had several addresses following his release from prison is no excuse for his failure to keep his address current as required by the Court's Local Rules. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[a]lthough pro se litigants should be afforded latitude ... they generally are required to inform themselves regarding procedural rules and to comply with them" (internal quotations and citation omitted)). Plaintiff plainly was aware of his obligation to update his address and knew how to do so, as he previously filed a motion to update his address with the Court. (See Dkt. 7 (on May 27, 2019, informing Court of updated address)).
Plaintiff acknowledges receiving the judgment dismissing his case in April 2020. (See id. ("[t]he last letter I received from your office which stated that judgment dismissing case with prejudice was 4/17/2020 in the height of Corona-19.")). Despite apparently receiving the judgment closing his case, Plaintiff did not file a motion to reopen his case at that time, but rather waited until August 2021—almost 16 months later—to file any such motion. Plaintiff offers no meaningful explanation as to why he waited so long to move to reopen his case, nor does he submit any evidence supporting that his delay was excusable. Plaintiff's statement that he believed "everything stopped" due to the COVID-19 pandemic is contrary to the language in the order to show cause issued by the Court, which directed Plaintiff to update his address within 45 days or his case would be dismissed. Moreover, Plaintiff offers no support for his contention that the Court's deadlines were somehow held in abeyance for almost two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and indeed, there is no support for such a contention.
Permitting Plaintiff to reopen his case 16 months after it was closed would result in fundamental unfairness to the defendants, see Moore v. Westchester Cnty. , No. 15 CV 1881 (VB), 2016 WL 3181156, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2016) ("because the delay caused by plaintiff was lengthy and inexcusable, the Court concludes that allowing the case to be reopened at this point, more than seven months after it was closed, would be unfair and prejudicial to defendants"), and the Court was well within its discretion in dismissing Plaintiff's case in April 2020, based on the length of the delay, the notice provided to Petitioner, the extremely congested nature of the Court's calendar, and the ineffectiveness of any lesser sanctions under the circumstances, see Gomez-Ka'Dawid v. Wright , No. 08-CV-6530 MAT, 2013 WL 1103208, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013) (discussing factors to be considered in determining whether to dismiss where the plaintiff failed to update address for five months). Because Plaintiff has failed to offer any valid explanation for his failure to keep his address current, or for his 16-month delay in moving to reopen his case, his motion to reopen is denied.
SO ORDERED.