Opinion
Civil Action 22-511
10-13-2022
GREGORY G. BROWN Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and JEFFREY S. FEWELL, Warden, Respondents.
David S. Cercone District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
Petitioner Gregory G. Brown (“Petitioner”) was, at the time of filing, detained at the Washington County Jail in Washington, Pennsylvania. Petitioner submitted a self-styled “Informal Habeas Lawsuit” (the “Petition”), which was received by this Court on March 31, 2022. ECF No. 2. The Petition was submitted without filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. While the Petition lacks detail, it appears that Petitioner seeks relief from the conditions of his confinement through a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
A Deficiency Order was issued on May 20, 2022. ECF No. 3. Petitioner failed to respond thereto and, on July 12, 2022, an Order to Show Cause was issued. ECF No. 4. As of this date, Petitioner has failed respond to the Order to show cause, or pay the filing fee, or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
A district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a litigant's failure to prosecute or to comply with an order of court. Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424, 1429 (3d Cir. 1990). “Under our jurisprudence, the sanction of dismissal is reserved for those cases where the plaintiff has caused delay or engaged in contumacious conduct. Even then, it is also necessary for the district court to consider whether the ends of justice would be better served by a lesser sanction.” Id.
In Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit set forth six factors to be weighed when considering whether dismissal of a case as a sanction for failure to prosecute or to obey pretrial orders. They are: (1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Id. at 868. These factors must be balanced in determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction, although not all need to weigh in favor of dismissal before dismissal is warranted. Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152 (3d Cir. 1988). Application of the Poulis factors is appropriate in the context of habeas cases as well as to civil rights actions. Harlacher v. Pennsylvania, No. 10-0267, 2010 WL 1462494, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 1445552 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2010) (applying Poulis to a habeas case).
Consideration of the factors listed above is as follows.
(1) The extent of the party's personal responsibility
Petitioner is proceeding in this matter pro se, and is alone responsible for prosecuting this case and complying with orders of this Court.
(2) Prejudice to the adversary
Respondents have not been served a habeas petition. There is no indication that any Respondent has been prejudiced unfairly by Petitioner's conduct.
(3) A history of dilatoriness
Petitioner has refused to pay the required filing fee, or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This is sufficient evidence, in this Court's view, to indicate that Petitioner does not intend to proceed with this case in a timely manner.
(4) Whether the party's conduct was willful or in bad faith
There is no indication on the record that Petitioner's conduct is the result of any “excusable neglect,” Poulis, supra. The conclusion that Petitioner's failure is willful is inescapable.
(5) Alternative sanctions
Petitioner currently is proceeding pro se, and there is no indication on the record that the imposition of costs or fees likely would be an effective sanction.
(6) Meritoriousness of the case
The Petition is lean on information, but it appears that Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from the conditions of his confinement by state authorities. The availability of such relief has not been recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and district courts within this circuit have dismissed such petitions as not cognizable in federal habeas law. See, e.g., Houck v. Moser, No. 20-cv-255, 2021 WL 1840827, at *2 (W.D. Pa. May 7, 2021) (“Even in the COVID-19 era, a writ of habeas corpus is not a generally available remedy outside the immigrant detainee context contemplated in Hope[.]”). See also Arrington v. Cmmw., No. 21-cv-1282, 2022 WL 317147, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 314675 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2022) (“If Petitioner wants to pursue claims regarding the alleged mold at the Beaver County Jail, the mental health care he receives there, or whether the jail follows applicable local, state or federal guidelines or its grievance procedures, he may only do so in separate civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). Accordingly, the Petition appears to lack merit.
Because five of the six Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. A certificate of appealability should be denied because jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that a certificate of appealability be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.