Opinion
Civil Action 23-1219
10-17-2023
HASSAN MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. FAYETTE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
Robert J. Colville 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 Hassan Martin (“Plaintiff') is an individual who, at the time of filing, was held at Fayette County Prison in Uniontown, Pennsylvania. This case was initiated with the receipt of Plaintiffs Complaint, which alleges constitutional violations against multiple Defendants at the Fayette County Prison. ECF No. 1-1. The Complaint was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in lieu of the filing fee. ECF No. 1.
On July 14, 2023, this Court entered a Deficiency Order, ECF No. 3, requiring Plaintiff to provide certain documents to the Court to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, statutory requirements, and/or our Local Rules and/or practices. Plaintiff was warned that failure to cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was given a deadline of August 14, 2023 to cure the deficiencies. Id. at 5. A copy was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Deficiency Order, and the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause on September 5, 2023. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was informed that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause on or before September 26,2023 would result in dismissal. Id. at 1. This Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record.
Both the Deficiency Order and the Order to Show Cause were returned as undeliverable on September 18, 2023. As of the date of this writing, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause, nor has he cured the filing deficiencies identified in the Deficiency Order, nor has he provided an updated address to 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 cure the identified deficiencies, as well as for providing an accurate address to this Court.
(2) Prejudice to the adversary.
Leave to proceed IFP has not been granted, 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 correct deficiencies with the motion to proceed IFP, and has not responded to the Order to Show Cause of September 5,2023. Plaintiff has not updated his address. 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 and omissions were the result of any “excusable neglect,” Poulis, supra. The conclusion that their 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, pursuant to Rule 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).
Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Respectfully submitted.
Hon. Robert J. Colville United States District Judge