Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

David Russell v. Jada Rao

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 4, 2012

DAVID RUSSELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JADA RAO, MD, ABASEY, MD, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Larimer United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff David Russell filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time that he filed the complaint in 2009, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. In November 2011, he was released to the custody of the federal Department of Homeland Security, for purposes of deportation. Plaintiff has since been deported to Barbados, where he currently resides.

Defendants, both of whom are physicians employed by New York State, have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. In support of the motion, defendants' attorney states that plaintiff has not contacted him or the Court, or taken any other action in this case, since January 2012. See Dkt. #42-2.

Plaintiff has, however, filed a response to defendants' motion. He states his understanding that earlier this year, defense counsel sought an extension of time to file dispositive motions, and that "[t]he Court has yet to make a decision, to my knowledge," on that request. Dkt. #44 ¶ 6.

In fact, the Court did grant defendants' extension request, giving them to May 11, 2012 to file dispositive motions. See Dkt. #41. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on May 11, and thus is timely.

In any event, the fact remains that plaintiff has been deported, and apparently cannot lawfully re-enter this country. As a practical matter, it is virtually impossible for him to effectively continue prosecuting this case. Perhaps most obviously, plaintiff would not be able to come here to try the case. Since plaintiff's current status thus renders impossible further prosecution of this case, or any meaningful disposition of the issues presented, the complaint is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. #42) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. #27) and motion to compel discovery (Dkt. #29) are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120904

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.