United States District Court, S.D. New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY H. WOODS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Tyrone Adams, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, initiated this action on February 27, 2017,
bringing various claims against Defendants under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Dkt. No. 2. For the reasons stated below, this
action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure
to comply with the Court's orders.
Adams was incarcerated when he initiated this action.
April 18, 2017, following an initial pretrial conference, the
Court entered a case management plan and scheduling order
pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
setting forth the applicable discovery deadlines in this
matter. Dkt. No. 11. Pursuant to that order, all discovery
was to be completed no later than September 29, 2017.
Id. The Court also scheduled a post-discovery status
conference for October 11, 2017. Id.
point after the initial pretrial conference, Mr. Adams was
released from custody. He did not, however, update his
address on the docket of this case or otherwise notify the
Court of his release and updated contact information.
letter dated September 20, 2017, Defendants informed the
Court that they had served discovery requests on Mr. Adams on
four separate occasions, but that due to Mr. Adams'
failure to update his address on the docket, Mr. Adams had
not received, and therefore had not responded to,
Defendants' discovery requests. Dkt. No. 20. Defendants
indicated that they had contacted Mr. Adams by telephone,
obtained his correct address, and sent another set of the
discovery requests to Mr. Adams' correct address.
Id. Defendants requested an extension of the
discovery deadline to allow Mr. Adams to respond.
Court held a conference on September 26, 2017 to address
Defendants' request. During that conference, Mr. Adams
appeared and represented to the Court that he had begun to
respond to interrogatories and was “almost done.”
The Court granted Defendants' request and extended the
discovery deadline to December 29, 2017. Dkt. No. 23. The
Court also adjourned the post-discovery status conference to
January 11, 2018. Id. During the September 26, 2017
conference, the Court warned Mr. Adams that if he failed to
timely respond to discovery requests, the Court could impose
sanctions, including the dismissal of his lawsuit.
November 20, 2017, Defendants filed a letter stating that
they had not received Mr. Adams' discovery responses.
Dkt. No. 25. Defendants sought an order compelling those
responses. Id. On November 21, 2017, the Court
issued an order scheduling a conference on Defendants'
motion to compel for November 29, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Dkt. No.
26. By that date, Mr. Adams had updated his address on the
docket. The scheduling order was mailed to Mr. Adams'
updated address by certified mail and by regular, first-class
mail on November 21, 2018. Mr. Adams failed to appear for the
November 29, 2017 conference. He also failed to request an
adjournment or to otherwise contact the Court in advance of
November 30, 2017, the Court issued an order adjourning the
November 29, 2018 conference to December 12, 2017 at 3:00
p.m. Dkt. No. 27. In that order, the Court reminded Mr. Adams
that his failure to comply with court orders, including his
failure to appear at the December 12, 2017 conference without
requesting and receiving an adjournment from the Court, could
result in a variety of sanctions, including dismissal of this
action for failure to prosecute. Id.
Adams appeared for the December 12, 2017 conference. During
that conference, the Court directed Mr. Adams to respond to
Defendants' requests for production of documents and
interrogatories no later than December 19, 2017. Dkt. No. 30.
The Court also extended the deadline for completion of
discovery to February 19, 2018 and adjourned the
post-discovery status conference to March 5, 2018.
Id. In the Court's order following that
conference, the Court again reminded Mr. Adams that failure
to comply with a court order, including failure to comply
with discovery deadlines or to appear at the March 5th status
conference, could result in the dismissal of this case for
failure to prosecute. Id. A copy of the Court's
order was mailed to Mr. Adams by certified mail and by
regular, first-class mail on December 13, 2017.
February 13, 2018, Defendants filed a letter requesting a
pre-motion conference in connection with their anticipated
motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 31. In
that letter, Defendants explained that Mr. Adams failed to
respond to discovery requests by the December 19, 2017
deadline and had not responded to their subsequent demand for
Mr. Adams' discovery responses. Id. On February
13, 2018, the Court issued an order granting Defendants'
request for a conference and scheduling that conference for
February 22, 2018. Dkt. No. 32. That order was mailed to Mr.
Adams by certified mail and by regular, first-class mail the
day after the order was issued. The order again included a
warning to Mr. Adams that his failure to comply with a court
order, including his failure to attend the February 22, 2018
conference without requesting and receiving an adjournment,
could result in the dismissal of his case. Id.
the Court's warning, Mr. Adams did not appear for the
February 22, 2018 conference and did not request an
adjournment of the conference. Accordingly, the Court issued
an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for failure to prosecute and scheduled a hearing for March 1,
2018 at 4:00 p.m. Dkt. No. 33. A copy of that order was
mailed to Mr. Adams by certified mail and by regular,
first-class mail on February 23, 2018. Once again, the Court
reminded Mr. Adams in that order that if he failed to comply
with a court order, including his failure to appear for the
show cause hearing on March 1st, that he faced possible
sanctions, including the dismissal of this case. Id.
March 1, 2018, without having requested an adjournment, Mr.
Adams failed to ...