Opinion
Civil Action 20-1761
03-24-2021
G. DOE, Plaintiff, v. CO., SUPT., LT., SGT., PRC., PRT., COUNSELOR., UNIT MANGER, Defendants.
The Honorable Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY United States Magistrate Judge
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the C lodged in the above-captioned case, ECF No. 1, be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
II. REPORT
Plaintiff G. Doe (“Plaintiff”) presents an anonymous civil rights complaint against several unnamed Defendants who are apparently employees at the State Correctional Institution - Greene (“SCI - Greene”). The envelope containing the anonymous Complaint bears the name and inmate identification number of Jeffrey Shipman, an inmate currently incarcerated at SCI - Greene. ECF No. 1-2. Accordingly, the Court has directed all orders in this matter to Jeffrey Shipman as the putative plaintiff. Plaintiff brings claims regarding the alleged stark and unsanitary conditions of his confinement. ECF No. 1.
On December 1, 2020, the Court issued a deficiency order directing Plaintiff to provide the Court with, inter alia, a complaint in compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure identifying the parties to this action, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and Notices of Waivers of Service for each named defendant no later than January 5, 2021. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff failed to file a response as ordered and on February 5, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause by March 8, 2021 would result in this Court recommending that the case against the Defendants be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond or give any indication that he wishes to proceed with this action. Moreover, the Court's mailed Orders have not been returned as undeliverable, yet the Pennsylvania Inmate Locater indicates that the identified Plaintiff remains at SCI-Greene.
Punitive dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders is left to the discretion of the court. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992). In determining whether an action should be dismissed as a sanction against a party, the court must consider six factors. These factors, set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984), are as follows:
(1) The extent of the party's personal responsibility.
(2) The prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery.
(3) A history of dilatoriness.
(4) Whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith.
(5) The effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions.
(6) The meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
Consideration of these factors suggests that the instant action should be dismissed.
Factors 1, 3, and 4 all relate to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's orders so that the case may proceed and weighs heavily against him. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's orders was not only solely his personal responsibility but his failure to do so appears willful and constitutes a history of dilatoriness.
With respect to the second factor -- the prejudice caused to the adversary by Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's orders -- there appears to be no specific prejudice to Defendants other than general delay, especially given that they have not yet been served with Complaint. Similarly, factor No. 6 -- the meritoriousness of the claim -- will be weighed neither in favor nor against Plaintiff as it is too early in the litigation to assess the merits of Plaintiff's claims. Nevertheless, “[n]ot all of these factors need be met for a district court to find dismissal is warranted.” Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1988).
The final factor to consider is the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal. Since Plaintiff filed this action without the payment of the required filing fee, it does not appear that monetary sanctions are appropriate. Moreover, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's orders has prevented this case from proceeding and indicates that Plaintiff has no serious interest in pursuing this case. It therefore appears that dismissal is the most appropriate action for the Court to take. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d at 1373. Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Complaint filed in the above-captioned case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) & (C), and Local Rule 72.D.2, Plaintiff is permitted to file written objections and responses thereto 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 constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). See 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 (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.