Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-0003E
10-01-2020
AKEEM HUTCHINSON, Plaintiff, v. MR. OVERMYER, Superintendant, D.F. OBERLANDER, Deputy Superintendant, MS. SHEESLEY, PSS, Individually and in their Official Capacities, Defendants.
District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
Re: ECF No. 101 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, ECF No. 101, be granted and that the Complaint filed in the above-captioned case, ECF No. 3, be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
II. REPORT
Plaintiff Akeem Hutchinson has presented a civil rights complaint against Defendants Overmyer, Oblerlander and Sheesley, and alleges that in the course of his incarceration at the State Correctional Institution at Forest ("SCI - Forest"), Defendants violated his constitutional rights by exercising deliberate indifference to his severe mental health issues and by confining him in a Restricted Housing Unit despite his severe mental health issues. ECF No. 3.
On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Civil Action, ECF No. 74, to permit him time after his anticipated March 2020 release from incarceration to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On December 2, 2019, District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter issued an order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Civil Action and stayed the matter for a period of six months, until May 18, 2020. ECF No. 75. On July 21, 2020, Judge Baxter issued an order lifting the stay and reopening the case. A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff's address of record at SCI-Forest on that date. ECF No. 92. On July 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly issued an order directing the Defendants to respond to the Complaint. ECF No. 94. A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff's address of record at SCI-Forest.
On August 3, 2020, and August 5, 2020, the Orders at ECF Nos. 92 and 94 were returned to the Court as undeliverable. A review of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Inmate Locator reveals that the Plaintiff was paroled on March 20, 2020. Since his parole, Plaintiff has not provided an updated address of residence to the Court. Accordingly, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and directing the Plaintiff to file a response on or before August 28, 2020. ECF No. 98.
On August 14, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, ECF No. 99, and provided the Court with Plaintiff's last known address. A copy of the Court's Order granting Defendant an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint was mailed to Plaintiff's new address of record and to SCI-Forest. ECF No. 100. The copy mailed to SCI-Forest was returned to the Court as undeliverable; however, the copy sent to the address supplied by Defendants has not been returned. In the interim, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause issued on August 7, 2020. Defendants thereafter filed the pending Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, ECF No. 101, raising Plaintiff's failure to respond to any Order of Court or to provide the parties or the Court with a new address.
It is clear that the 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, as 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.Consideration of these factors suggests that the instant action should be dismissed.
(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.
Factors 1, 3, and 4 all relate to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's orders and failure to notify the Court of his change of address so that the case could proceed, which weigh heavily against him. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of his change of address and failure to respond to the Court's orders was not only solely his personal responsibility but his failure to do so nearly three months after this case has been reopened 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. Similarly, factor No. 6 -- the meritoriousness of the claim -- will be weighed neither in favor nor against 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).
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, which has prevented this case from proceeding, 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 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, ECF No. 101, be granted and 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/_________
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: October 1, 2020 cc: The Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter
United States District Judge
AKEEM HUTCHINSON
2113 Mazette Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15205
All Counsel of Record via CM/ECF