Opinion
3:24-cv-10-SPB-KAP
10-29-2024
JOSEPH HENSLEY, Plaintiff v. S.C.I. HOUTZDALE STAFF, et al., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
RECOMMENDATION
The complaint, ECF no. 10, should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Report
On January 12, 2024, plaintiff Joseph Hensley, an inmate at S.C.I. Houtzdale familiar to the court from his filings at 1:17-cv-00086-SPB-RAL, 2:18-cv-00355-SPB-RAL, 3:21-cv-00184-SPB-RAL, 3:22-cv-00150-SPB-KAP, 3:22-cv-00171-RAL, and 3:24-cv-00124-KAP, filed a complaint subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act about conditions at S.C.I. Houtzdale. By June 2024, plaintiff had filed a valid motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In September 2024, I ordered service, noting that Hensley's failure to complete the DOC's administrative remedy process in accordance with the prison's grievance policies was apparent from the face of the complaint and most likely doomed his complaint after Talley v. Clark, No. 19-3797, 2024 WL 3611794 at *3 (3d Cir. Aug. 1, 2024). Hensley's pleadings indicate that Hensley did not even file an appeal to the final level of review provided by DC-ADM 804 until January 25, 2024.
I also noted that Hensley's complaint did not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10 because he named “RHU Staff” and “Medical Department” as defendants with “Capt. Jones to respond as agent” and “J. Altemus CHCA as agent,” and advised that “Hensley may wish to fix these defects now to avoid wasting time and money. If he wishes to proceed to service he must provide the Clerk with a copy of his entire complaint (including the exhibits he sent the Clerk in February and June) and directions for service on each defendant.” ECF no. 9.
Hensley, although active in other civil matters, has done nothing in this case since then, either to remedy the defects in his complaint or to supply the Clerk with service paperwork for the complaint he did submit. The Court of Appeals, in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1984) and more recently in Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir.2019), set out the factors a court must consider in deciding whether to impose a sanction for failure to prosecute are listed as: (1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary; (3) any history of delay; (4) whether the conduct of the party or attorney at fault was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of alternative sanctions; and (6) the merit of the claim or defense. It is not necessary that all the Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir.1988). What is necessary is that any sanction balance the Court's need to control its own docket against the goal of pretrial proceeding, which is to dispose of cases on their merits. See In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236, 246 (3d Cir.2013). Analysis of the Poulis factors is simple in this case, and justifies dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is indigent. That makes the failure to take steps to serve the complaint plaintiff's personal responsibility, and makes alternative (financial) sanctions ineffective. The prejudice to a defendant from having a plaintiff's complaint sitting unserved is clear: since Rule 3 provides that a civil action commences with the filing of a complaint, a plaintiff can indefinitely toll the statute of limitations without carrying out the correlative duty of informing defendants of the nature of the alleged claim in contravention of federal practice, which intentionally does not use the writ of summons/rule to file complaint procedure.
Aside from this illustration of how scarce judicial time is diverted by the inaction of a plaintiff, there is no notable history of delay. Given Hensley's filing of pleadings elsewhere while this case is inert the failure to provide service paperwork here can be characterized as “willful.” On the merits, the complaint is going to be dismissed for failure to exhaust if it is ever served. If Hensley does not voluntarily dismiss the complaint under Rule 41, it should be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the plaintiff can within fourteen days file written objections to my recommendation. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).