Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-1092
11-02-2020
RONALD LEE JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON and JOHN R. WALTON, Warden, Respondents.
District Judge W. Scott Hardy/Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute given that Petitioner failed to pay the filing fee as directed, ECF No. 6, and failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause, entered on October 1, 2020, ECF No. 9.
II. REPORT
A. Procedural History
On July 22, 2020, Ronald Lee Johnson ("Petitioner") submitted for filing the Petition. It was deficient in that it was not accompanied by the filing fee or a completed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No 1. Accordingly, on July 28, 2020, the Court issued a Deficiency Order administratively closing this case and providing leave for the Petitioner to reopen the case by paying the filing fee or submitting a completed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
Petitioner submitted a completed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on August 10, 2020. ECF No. 3. After review, the Court determined that the Petitioner had more than sufficient funds to cover the nominal $5.00 filing fee and issued an Order on August 17, 2020 requiring the Petitioner to pay the filing fee by September 18, 2020 or the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 6. Petitioner failed to pay the filing fee by September 18, 2020. Therefore, the Court ordered Petitioner to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed due to his failure to prosecute. ECF No. 9. The Order to Show Cause required Petitioner to either file a response to the Order to Show Cause or to pay the filing fee no later than October 16, 2020. Id. As of this date, Petitioner has not paid the filing fee, nor has he responded to the Order to Show Cause.
B. Discussion
A district court has the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a party's failure to comply with an order of court. Adams v. Trustees of New Jersey Brewery Employees' Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 871 (3d Cir. 1994). A court's decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the court's sound discretion. See Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 161 F.3d 225, 230 (3d Cir. 1998) ("We review for abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b)."), abrogated on other grounds by, Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007). In exercising that discretion, a district court should, to the extent applicable, consider the six factors known as the Poulis factors when it levies the sanction of dismissal of an action for failure to obey discovery schedules, failure to prosecute, or to comply with other procedural rules. Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1330 n.18 (3d Cir. 1995).
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 the following six factors to be considered: (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 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. However, "Poulis did not provide a magic formula whereby the decision to dismiss or not to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint becomes a mechanical calculation easily reviewed by" the Court of Appeals. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992). Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recognized that "not all of the Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to dismiss a complaint. See C.T. Bedwell & Sons, Inc. v. Int'l. Fidelity Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 683, 696 (3d Cir. 1988). Instead, the decision must be made in the context of the district court's extended contact with the litigant." Id.
In light of Petitioner's failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause, it seems that Petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the instant federal habeas action. The Court finds the Poulis factors sufficiently met herein to justify dismissal of this case without prejudice. Weighing heavily in this Court's judgment is Poulis factor 1, i.e., the extent of the party's personal responsibility. Petitioner alone is responsible for his failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause, and indeed, his failure to do so would seemingly confirm that he has now lost interest is prosecuting this Petition.
Consequently, this Court recommends that Petitioner's case be dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to prosecute this case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out in this Report and Recommendation, it is respectfully recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
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). 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, Date: November 2, 2020
/s/ Maureen P . Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: The Honorable W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
RONALD LEE JOHNSON
BK# 878 2020
Westmoreland County Jail
3000 South Grande Blvd.
Greensburg, PA 15601-9176
See, e.g., Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002) ("In considering the second Poulis factor . . ."). Poulis refers to Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).