Rodriguez v. Gusman


19-2213-cv Rodriguez v. Gusman 1 2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4 ____________________ 5 6 August Term, 2020 7 8 (Argued: August 17, 2020 Decided: August 31, 2020) 9 10 Docket No. 19-2213-cv 11 12 ____________________ 13 14 JOSE RODRIGUEZ, 15 16 Plaintiff-Appellant, 17 18 v. 19 20 DR. MIKAIL A. GUSMAN, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL 21 FACILITY, FKA DR. GUZMAN, FKA DR. GUSMAN, NANCY ANTHONY, 22 REGISTERED NURSE, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, FKA MS. 23 ANTHONY, DR. ANN ANDOLA, REGISTERED NURSE, EASTERN 24 CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, FKA MS. ANNDOLA, FKA DOCTOR 25 ANANDOLAS, JEFFREY MCKOY, DR. BIPIN BHAVSAR, EASTERN 26 CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MEGAN MCGLYNN, ROGER TRAYNOR, 27 DAVID JACOBS, AMANDA DEMSHICK, 28 29 Defendants-Appellees. 1 30 31 ____________________ 32 33 Before: NEWMAN, POOLER, and HALL, Circuit Judges. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above. 1 2 Jose Rodriguez appeals from the June 21, 2019 decision and order of the 3 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mae A. 4 D’Agostino, J.) adopting the Magistrate Judge’s sua sponte order 5 administratively closing Rodriguez’s civil rights suit against defendants and 6 denying Rodriguez’s motion to reconsider. The district court concluded that, 7 because Rodriguez had been deported to the Dominican Republic, Rodriguez 8 would be unavailable in the United States for depositions, further medical 9 examinations, and trial testimony, and the case should be closed. Our Circuit has 10 yet to address what standard guides administrative-closure decisions when a 11 plaintiff is unavailable. We hold that an administrative closure in such 12 circumstances is a last resort that is appropriate only when all other alternatives 13 are virtually impossible or so impractical as to significantly interfere with the 14 operations of the district court or impose an unreasonable burden on the party 15 opposing the plaintiff’s claim. On the present record, numerous alternatives to 16 the issues identified by the district court exist, and none appears to meet the 17 above-articulated standard. We accordingly vacate the district court’s order and 18 remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 1 VACATED and REMANDED. 2 ____________________ 3 ROBERT J. O’LOUGHLIN, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, 4 Wharton & Garrison LLP (Karen King, Ayelet M. 5 Evrony, Amanda B. Horowitz, on the brief), New York, 6 N.Y., for Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Rodriguez. 7 8 FRANK BRADY, Assistant Solicitor General (Jeffrey W. 9 Lang, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia 10 James, Attorney General of the State of New York, New 11 York, N.Y., for Defendant-Appellees. 12 13 POOLER, Circuit Judge: 14 Jose Rodriguez appeals from the June 21, 2019 decision and order of the 15 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mae A. 16 D’Agostino, J.) adopting the Magistrate Judge’s sua sponte order 17 administratively closing Rodriguez’s civil rights suit against defendants 2 and 2 The defendants in this case are Dr. Mikail A. Gusman, the Medical Director of New York’s Eastern Correctional Facility ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals