Opinion
Civil Action 20-611
07-11-2022
THOMAS R. GALLOWAY, JR., Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. WALTON, Warden, Westmoreland County Prison, WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON, GEORGE LOWTHER, D. Security Warden, ERIC SCWARTZ, D. Warden of Treatment, Defendants.
Nora Barry Fischer, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Re: ECF No. 130
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Sanctions filed on behalf of Defendants Westmoreland County Prison (“WCP”) and three of its officials - Warden John R. Walton, Deputy Security Warden George Lowther, and Deputy Warden of Treatment Eric Scwartz (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 130. It is respectfully recommended that the Court grant the Motion for Sanctions and dismiss this action with prejudice.
II. REPORT
A. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Thomas R. Galloway, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) commenced this civil rights action pro se on April 27, 2020, alleging that each Defendant violated his constitutional and statutory rights by: (1) interfering with the exercise and practice of his faith, (2) failing to properly clean the WCP and provide inmates cleaning products to protect against infection, and (3) unlawfully confiscating funds from his inmate account for the payment of court-ordered fines and costs. ECF No. 30. As reflected on the docket of this matter and in Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, this litigation has been hampered by Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests and comply with this Court's related orders and scheduling deadlines.
As relevant to the pending Motion, on July 30, 2021, Defendants served Plaintiff with interrogatories and requests for production. On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff served responses that were incomplete or evasive, and Defendants filed a Motion to Compel on September 8, 2021, ECF No. 112. The Motion to Compel was granted on October 6, 2021, ECF No. 122. In that Memorandum Order, Plaintiff was expressly directed to respond to identified interrogatories and requests for production of documents by October 21, 2021. Id. at 6. The Court issued a Case Management Order setting a deadline for completion of discovery by January 18, 2022. ECF No. 123. The Case Management Order also required Plaintiff to file his Pretrial Statement by March 1, 2022. Id.
On January 18, 2022, Defendants filed their Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, indicating that Plaintiff's responses to their initial discovery requests remained outstanding and that Plaintiff's failure to respond impeded their ability to investigate Plaintiff's claims and any available defenses. ECF No. 124 ¶ 8. On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a single page document stating that the requested documents were lost and requesting that the Court provide copies of documents he filed on the docket of this matter. ECF No. 126.
On February 25, 2022, the Court granted the Second Motion to Compel and instructed Plaintiff of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the availability of sanctions for non-compliance with discovery orders pursuant to Rules 16 and 37. ECF No. 127. In addition, the Court advised that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action with prejudice for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case. Id. The Court noted that the record reflects Plaintiff was released from custody on or about September 14, 2021, and is unemployed. Id. As such, Plaintiff faced no scheduling impediments to comply with Court's Orders related to discovery and he may review any missing documents filed on the docket of this matter by visiting the Clerk's Office. Id.
Plaintiff also failed to file his Pretrial Statement by March 1, 2022, in compliance with this Court's Case Management Order. Thus, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 128. In response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff repeated the allegations set forth in his Complaint but did not file his Pretrial Statement. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a Pretrial Statement to identify any exhibits or witnesses, nor otherwise complied with the requirements set forth in the Case Management Order and related orders.
Due to Plaintiff's continued failure to respond to outstanding discovery requests, Defendants filed the pending Motion for Sanctions on April 7, 2022. ECF No. 130. Defendants complained of the obvious prejudice of continuing this litigation without the information requested from Plaintiff. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the Motion for Sanctions by April 28, 2022. ECF No. 132. Plaintiff followed with an untimely Motion for Summary Judgment on April 25, 2022, but did not provide a response to outstanding discovery or a response to the Motion for Sanctions. ECF No. 135. On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a cursory Motion to Extend Time related to the pending Orders to Show Cause. ECF No. 139.
In the interests of justice and given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court granted one final extension of time until June 16, 2022, for Plaintiff to respond to: (1) the outstanding orders to show cause, (2) the Motion for Sanctions, (3) Defendants' discovery requests, and (4) to file his Pretrial Statement. ECF No. 140. On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed another untimely Motion for Summary Judgment, along with a Declaration and an Affidavit in support of his summary judgment motion, all of which repeat the allegations set forth in his Complaint. ECF Nos. 141-143. However, as of this date, Plaintiff still has not responded to Defendants' discovery requests or the pending Motion for Sanctions, nor has he filed his Pretrial Statement. Plaintiff offers no explanation for his conduct; yet he demands the entry of judgment in his favor. Thus, the Motion for Sanctions is ripe for disposition.
B. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss this action due to Plaintiff's persistent failure to respond to discovery and comply with Court orders directing his response. ECF No. 130 at 3. Alternatively, Defendants request that the Court enter an order precluding Plaintiff from introducing any evidence requested in outstanding discovery requests at trial or any other hearing. Id. at 3-4.
Pursuant to Rule 16(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may “issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney ... fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C). The authorized sanctions identified by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) - (vii) include, in relevant part:
ii. prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
iii. striking pleadings in whole or in part;
iv. staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
v. dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
vi. rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party;
vii. treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to physical or mental examination.Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii). As the Court instructed Plaintiff in its Order dated April 28, 2022, dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is within the Court's discretion when a plaintiff repeatedly and without reasonable excuse fails to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); and see Poulis v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); Reigle v. Riesh, 635 Fed.Appx. 8, 11 (3d Cir. 2015).
When the imposition of sanctions results in dismissal of the action or precludes the introduction of evidence that may effectively dictate the result of an action, the Court must consider the six factors enumerated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Poulis. Knoll v. City of Allentown, 707 F.3d 406, 409-10 (3d Cir. 2013). The factors are:
(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; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868 (emphasis deleted). No single Poulis factor is dispositive, and “not all of the Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to dismiss a complaint.” Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992). However, in determining whether a dismissal is warranted, the Court must analyze the factors in light of the “strong policy favoring decisions on the merits.” Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2019). The Third Circuit has emphasized that “[d]ismissal must be a sanction of last, not first, resort,” and the Court should assure itself that no other sanction would “serve the end of justice.” Poulis, at 869; Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North America, 695 F.2d 746, 747 (3d Cir. 1982).
Turning first to the party's personal responsibility, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and thus the repeated failure to respond to discovery or comply with Court orders is entirely attributable to him. Throughout the litigation of this case, Plaintiff has consistently refused to respond to discovery requests seeking information regarding the elements of his claims, and has ignored Court orders to do so. This Court determined that Defendants are entitled to full and complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21, as well as Requests for Production 1, 6, 8, and 9, and directed Plaintiff to respond. ECF No. 122 at 3-5. Despite the clarity of this direction, Plaintiff has not provided a response. The first Poulis factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal.
The second Poulis factor, the prejudice to the adversary caused by Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court orders, also weighs in favor of dismissal in this case. Defendants contend that because Plaintiff refuses to respond to discovery requests, they are unable to investigate Plaintiff's claims and available defenses. ECF No. 130 at 3. The Court agrees that absent the requested discovery responses and required Pretrial Statement, Defendants are unduly hampered in their ability to file a motion for summary judgment or otherwise prepare for trial. Relevant concerns include “the irretrievable loss of evidence, the inevitable dimming of witnesses' memories[,] the excessive and possibly irremediable burdens or costs imposed on the opposing party,” Adams v. Trustees of the N.J. Brewery Emps.' Pension Tr. Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 874 (3d Cir. 1994), and “the burden imposed by impeding a party's ability to prepare effectively a full and complete trial strategy.” Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2003). Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court orders thus prejudices Defendants' ability to litigate this action, and frustrates and delays the resolution of his claims.
The third Poulis factor, the history of dilatoriness also supports dismissal. This action was filed in the Spring of 2020 but has failed to progress through discovery because of Plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and express orders of this Court.
With respect to the fourth Poulis factor, “[w]illfulness involves intentional or self-serving behavior.” Adams, 29 F.3d at 874. In this case, there is nothing on the docket to suggest that Plaintiff is not currently receiving the Court's orders, and his failure to comply with the Court's orders therefore appears willful. The Court notes that it previously considered Plaintiff's claims that documents were lost and his request that the Court print all documents on the docket for him. ECF No. 126, 140. The Court instructed Plaintiff that all documents filed on the docket were available for his review in the Courthouse during normal business hours, and that if a responsive document was not available on the docket and had been lost, he could so indicate in response to a request for production of documents. Plaintiff has not complied with these instructions nor has he answered interrogatories related to the elements of his claims that do not rely on documentation, and thus crucial discovery remains unanswered. Therefore, his failure to comply with Court orders appears willful.
The fifth factor address the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal. Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869. It is well-established that monetary sanctions are ineffective where the Plaintiff is indigent. See, e.g., Brennan v. Clouse, No. 11-0146, 2012 WL 876228, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2012) (“Alternative sanctions, such as monetary penalties, are inappropriate as sanctions with indigent pro se parties.”) (citing Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2002)). Moreover, alternative sanctions are unlikely to be effective against a party who will not comply with the rules of court orders. The Court has provided instructions for compliance, granted several extensions of time, and exercised patience with Plaintiff's ongoing refusal to cooperate in the litigation of his claims, all to no avail. Thus, alternatives such as evidence preclusion or staying this action pending compliance are not adequate to redress his ongoing recalcitrance. This factor weighs heavily in favor of dismissal.
Finally, the Court must consider the potential merit of Plaintiff's claims. A claim will be deemed meritorious “when the allegations of the pleadings, if established at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff.” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869-70. For purposes of this analysis only, this factor will be weighed in favor of Plaintiff. 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).
On balance, the Court concludes that at least five of the six Poulis factors support dismissal, with the remaining factor (meritoriousness of claim) not weighed in favor of dismissal. While the Court is mindful of the strong policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits, such a resolution is impossible where the plaintiff refuses to permit his claims to fairly proceed. Consequently, the Court concludes that on the record presented here, the extreme sanction of dismissal is supported by the Poulis factors.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that the Court grant the Motion for Sanctions and dismiss this action due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with orders of this Court to move this case forward.
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.