Opinion
Civil Action 23-572
07-31-2023
ADAM GRIFFEY, Plaintiff, v. CISCO; ASHLEY; and WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.
Hon. J. Nicholas Ranjan United States 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 pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. REPORT
Plaintiff Adam J. Griffey was, at the time of filing, detained at the Washington County Jail in Washington, Pennsylvania. This case was commenced on April 5, 2023, with the receipt of Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), and a civil rights complaint. ECF Nos. 1 and 1-1.
On April 21, 2023, this Court denied Plaintiffs IFP motion because he had acquired three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was ordered to pay the full filing fee on or before May 22, 2023, or face possible dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. at 3. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and, on June 21, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to show good cause by July 12, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed. ECF No. 4. The Order to Show Cause was returned undelivered on July 14, 2023, marked “Released 5/7/2023.” ECF No. 5 at 1.
As of the date of this writing, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Order to Show Cause. Nor has he updated his address with this Court.
A district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a plaintiffs 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). Consideration of the factors listed above is as follows.
(1) The extent of the party's personal responsibility
Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, and is alone responsible for prosecuting this case and complying with orders of this Court. Plaintiff is solely responsible for failing to pay the filing fee and for failing to update his address with this Court.
(2) Prejudice to the adversary
The filing fee has not been paid, and no Defendant has been served the complaint. There is no indication that any Defendant has been prejudiced unfairly by Plaintiffs conduct.
(3) A history of dilatoriness
Plaintiff has refused to pay the filing fee, and has not updated his address with this Court. This is sufficient evidence, in this Court's view, to indicate that Plaintiff does not intend to proceed with this case in a timely fashion.
(4) Whether the party's conduct was willful or in bad faith
There is no indication on the record that Plaintiffs conduct with respect to paying the filing fee and updating his address was the result of any “excusable neglect,” Poulis, supra. The conclusion that the failure is willful is inescapable.
(5) Alternative sanctions
Plaintiff currently is proceeding pro se, and there is no indication on the record that the imposition of costs or fees would likely be an effective sanction.
(6) Meritoriousness of the case
It is unclear at this early stage whether Plaintiffs claims have merit.
Because four of the six Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth above, it respectfully is recommended that this case be dismissed, without prejudice to refiling, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
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).