Opinion
Civil Action 21-CV-0518
07-19-2021
MARCHESU MINOR Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT Defendant
ORDER
NITZA I. QUINONES ALEJANDRO Judge.
AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2021, Plaintiff Marchesu Minor's having paid the fees to commence this case and upon consideration of Minor's pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The March 31, 2021 Order dismissing this case (ECF No. 14) is VACATED.
2. The Clerk of Court shall REOPEN this case.
3. The Clerk of Court shall UPDATE Minor's address on the docket to reflect that she is currently incarcerated at: Alternative & Special Detention, 8101 State Road, Philadelphia PA, 19136.
4. The Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum.
5. Minor may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Any amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption of the amended complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the amended complaint and shall state the basis for Minor's claims against each defendant. The amended complaint must also provide as much identifying information for the defendants as possible. Minor may refer to a defendant by last name only if that is the only identifying information possessed. If Minor wishes to name individuals for whom she does not have any identifying information, she may refer to those individuals as John Doe #1, John Doe #2, etc. 1 Additionally, the amended complaint shall be a complete document that does not rely on the initial Complaint or other papers filed in this case to state a claim. When drafting her amended complaint, Minor should be mindful of the Court's reasons for dismissing the claims in her initial Complaint as explained in the Court's Memorandum. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until so ORDERED by the Court.
6. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Minor a blank copy of the Court's form complaint for a prisoner filing a civil rights action bearing the above civil action number. Minor may use this form to file her amended complaint if she chooses to do so.
Without the name of at least one individual or entity, however, the Court may be unable to direct service of any amended complaint that Minor may file.
This form is available on the Court's website at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/forms/frmc1983f.pdf.
7. If Minor does not wish to amend her Complaint and instead intends to stand on her Complaint as originally pled, she may file a notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint, ” and shall include the civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (“If the plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would be appropriate.” (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976))); In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding “that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with prejudice the otherwise viable claims . . . following plaintiffs' decision not to replead those claims” when the district court “expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the dismissal of those claims”).
8. If Minor fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that Minor intends to stand on her Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff's intent to stand on his complaint may be inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective complaint).
The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff's intention to stand on her complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint” doctrine as distinct from dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order, which require assessment of the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v. Altria, 799 Fed.Appx. 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her complaint, leaving the case without an operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 Fed.Appx. 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff's conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiff's behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case impossible, a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 292 F.R.D. 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“[T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes adjudication of the matter impossible.” (citing cases)).