Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv—OO904—RNC Document 53 Filed O3/15/2004 Page1 0f3
"“‘§F§T§fé2?°E§F °§§§N1I§TTIéi§’§“T f lim Y `
ZHUU MAR I5 F3 3: 22 )
ROBERT JACKSON H;%[x3TQHTTCGURT _
PRISONER W’i.FbU€°€[.?. UK
v. CASE NO. 3:00cv904(RNC)(DFM)
WATERBURY POLICE DEP’T, ET AL. [
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS X
The plaintiff brings this civil rights action prg se and in 1
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 against the Waterbury \
Police Department and three Waterbury police officers. The
plaintiff initially attempted to bring this action on behalf of his \
three minor children. On January 10, 2001, the court dismissed the
p claims of the minor plaintiffs Tabatha Jackson, James Young and I
M Shovahan Young without prejudice and also dismissed all claims 1
W against the Waterbury Police Department. (See doc. # 7.) The case l
i remains pending against Officers Ryan, Crea and Flaherty.
On June 24, 2003, the plaintiff notified the court that he had X
been discharged and resided in New York. On November 24, 2003, the 1
defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff's attendance at his \
deposition. Counsel for the defendants stated that the plaintiff’s
` deposition had been scheduled for November 21, 2003, but the N
I plaintiff failed to show up for the deposition and failed to E
respond to repeated written requests to contact counsel. The -
¢ letters were mailed to the plaintiff at his White Plains, New York
` address. The plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to compel
l
N
1 pyyy__________________________*_____________M___________wM_
2*khqA—QER5_A*¥`—A—QiRh_4*k5EA_QiRA—A—Qiiii;;;;;;;;;Z;;;;;;;;;IZZZIZ$:::::==;»—»`l.l
T"r·—~—~ »
_k_—A_¥h_4i`A—k`—A_`h_Ah`h__iRA_Q5—A_`5-AiR2;il;2;;;;;;Q;;;;II;;;;;;ZIZ3ZZIZ::::=;=¤»-—i`l-
;gg£§g§§;E;g;;;%“;’£;;;;iii7__*_—#`_`C"`T` ‘·"·* +¥"i* ‘-‘`i ec?fitfiifjiféaeiias3s§§§§sisisPEEEesi?EsiiiEE§E§%22§§EEiéiiiiiéiéiéiiésieiéii



Case 3:00-cv-00904-RNC Document 53 Filed O3/15/2004 Page 2 of 3 I
9
I or contact the court in any way. On December ll, 2003, the court I
granted defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to attend his
deposition and ordered the plaintiff to attend his deposition.
The defendants re-noticed the plaintiff's deposition for I
December 22, 2003. Counsel made several telephone calls to the I
plaintiffs residence and sent several written requests concerning I
the deposition. Counsel states that the plaintiff failed to I
respond to the telephone calls or written requests. Counsel re-
l
noticed the deposition for December 29, 2003. Again, counsel made
several telephone calls and sent letters to the plaintiff regarding
his obligation to attend the deposition. The plaintiff failed to I
respond in anyway and did not attend his deposition. I
The defendants now move to dismiss this action pursuant to
Rule 4l(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to
plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order and attend his l
deposition. The court issued an order of notice to ppg se litigant I
on January 13, 2004, advising plaintiff of his obligation to I
respond to the motion to dismiss within twenty—one days of the date
the motion was filed. The order was not returned to the Court as
undeliverable. The plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion I
or contact the court in any way. In fact, the last time the l
plaintiff contacted the court was in June 2003, when he informed
the court of his discharge from prison and new address. The last '
time the plaintiff took any action to prosecute this case was in
April 2003, when he filed a motion for extension of the scheduling

I -
I I
Case 3:00-cv—OO904—RNC Document 53 Filed O3/15/2004 Page 3 of 3
I
I order deadlines. I
Because the plaintiff has failed to attend his deposition as .
ordered by the court, has failed to respond to the motion to 1
dismiss and has failed to take any action to prosecute this case in
eleven months, the Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 51] this action
pursuant to Rule 4l(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is I
GRANTED. All claims against defendants Crea, Ryan and Flaherty are I
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4l(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
The Clerk is directed to/gbose this case. I
/
SO ORDERED this gd day of March, 2004, at Hartford, I
Connecticut. . _ _ ,/’/- Y
i Robert E. Chatggny H ` I §
United States District Judge `
I
I I
"‘I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
` I
I
3 I
I
I
I
I