DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
JOE MAYOR ALVAREZ, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
SAN JUAN VA MEDICAL CENTER, UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, ROY LESTER 
SCHNEIDER HOSPITAL, and DR. BRIAN 
BACOT, 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-0049  
)                                
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ORDER 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons stated below, the 
Court will dismiss this case.  
Joe Mayor Alvarez (“Alvarez”) filed a complaint against Defendants San Juan VA 
Medical Center (“the VA Medical Center”), the United States of America (“the Government”), 
Roy Lester Schneider Hospital, and Dr. Brian Bacot on July 25, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The VA 
Medical Center and the Government were served on August 16, 2017. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 15.) 
The other Defendants were not served and did not appear. 
On November 20, 2017, the Government filed a motion to change venue and an 
answer to the complaint. (ECF Nos. 21-23.) The next day, counsel for the parties appeared 
telephonically before the magistrate judge for a status conference. During the conference, 
the magistrate judge inquired about the status of the case, as she understood that Plaintiff 
Alvarez had passed away. Counsel for the Plaintiff responded that he was aware that Alvarez 
had died. Further, Counsel stated he would inquire with Alvarez’ son and would inform the 
Court how his son would like to proceed with the case. (ECF No. 24.) 
The record reflects that no further action was taken in this case until March 13, 2018, 
when the parties filed a document purporting to be a stipulation of dismissal. (ECF No. 25.) 
Since that filing, the only activity on the record on behalf of either party is a notice filed by 
Alvarez’ former counsel three years later, on March 7, 2021, stating, “review [of available 
Case: 3:17-cv-00049-RAM-RM   Document #: 29   Filed: 03/24/21   Page 1 of 2
Alvarez v. San Juan VA Medical Ctr et al. 
Case No. 3:17-cv-0049 
Order 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
records] confirms a conclusion that the Plaintiff, Joe Alvarez[,] has passed away . . . .” (ECF 
No. 28:4.) No suggestion of death or death certificate has been filed with the Court. 
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part, “[i]f the 
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may 
move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b). Here, although no 
defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the action, the Court may also, sua sponte, dismiss 
the action for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (“Neither 
the permissive language of the Rule—which merely authorizes a motion by the defendant—
nor its policy requires us to conclude that it was the purpose of the Rule to abrogate the 
power of courts, acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have 
remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.”). 
When a party dies, any party “or decedent’s successor or representative” may move 
for substitution of the party to pursue the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). In the instant case, 
the action has been dormant for three years and no party or legal successor has filed a motion 
to substitute party. Worthy v. Accumarine Transp., No. 9-cv-02262-TMC-JDA, 2010 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 147311, at *2 (S.D. Ala. May 19, 2010) (recommending that the district judge dismiss 
the action because the plaintiff died and, “to date, no action has been taken to substitute a 
proper party plaintiff to proceed with this litigation”), adopted No. 09-00664-WS-N, 2010 
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77349 (S.D. Ala. July 29. 2010). The sole Plaintiff, Alvarez, has failed to 
prosecute the case, Alvarez is believed to be deceased, and there has been no action to 
substitute a party plaintiff in the case. As such, the Court will dismiss the action without 
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will CLOSE the case. 
 
 
Dated: March 24, 2021 
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy   
 
 
 
  
 
                                         ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
  
 
                                         District Judge 
 
Case: 3:17-cv-00049-RAM-RM   Document #: 29   Filed: 03/24/21   Page 2 of 2