Opinion
CIVIL 1:20-cv-0113
06-21-2021
LAWRENCE MURRELL, JR., Plaintiff, v. KATHI MICHAEL, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Susan E. Schwab United States Magistrate Judge
I. Introduction.
We ordered the plaintiff, Lawrence Murrell Jr. (“Murrell”), to file an amended complaint, which he neglected to do, and the time to do so has since passed. Because Murrell has failed to comply with our order, it appears that he has abandoned this action. Accordingly, after analyzing the applicable factors, we recommend that the case be dismissed.
II. Background and Procedural History.
Murrell, proceeding pro se, began this action on January 22, 2020, by filing a complaint. Doc. 1. Murrell included as defendants Kathi Michael (“Michael”), a Baltimore County Police Officer, and the Baltimore County Police Department. Id.
On February 3, 2020, Murrell filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 7. We granted this motion on February 13, 2020, and conducted a preliminary review of Murrell's complaint. Doc. 9. After assessing Murrell's complaint, we concluded that Murrell's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 12. Accordingly, we granted Murrell leave to file an amended complaint on or before February 23, 2021. Id. Murrell has failed to file an amended complaint, and the time to do so has since passed.
III. Discussion.
By failing to respond to our order to file an amended complaint, it appears that Murrell has abandoned this action. Thus, we recommend that the court dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The court may dismiss an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) if the plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or to comply with court rules or court orders. Even though dismissal is an available sanction, it is a drastic sanction that “should be reserved for those cases where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 342 (3d Cir. 1982). In other words, “cases should be decided on the merits barring substantial circumstances in support of the contrary outcome.” Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cnty., 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2019).
Decisions regarding dismissal of actions for failure to prosecute rest in the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002). But that discretion, while broad, is governed by the following factors, commonly referred to as the Poulis factors, which the court must balance in deciding whether to dismiss a case:
(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 the 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.Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). No single factor is dispositive, Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 263 (3d Cir. 2008), and each factor need not be satisfied for the court to dismiss an action, Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2003). In this case, an assessment of the Poulis factors weighs in favor of dismissing this action.
The first Poulis factor is the extent of the party's personal responsibility. A pro se litigant is personally responsible for failure to comply with the court's rules and orders. In this case, because Murrell is proceeding pro se, he is responsible for his failure to respond to the show cause order and his failure to pay the filing fee.
The second Poulis factor is prejudice to the adversary. Examples of prejudice are “the irretrievable loss of evidence, the inevitable dimming of witnesses' memories, or the excessive and possibly irremediable burdens or costs imposed on the opposing party.” Scarborough v. Eubanks, 747 F.2d 871, 876 (3d Cir. 1984). Prejudice for purposes of the Poulis analysis, however, does not mean irremediable harm. Ware, 322 F.3d at 222. “[T]he burden imposed by impeding a party's ability to prepare effectively a full and complete trial strategy is sufficiently prejudicial.” Id. In this case, Murrell's failure to respond to our order to file an amended complaint frustrates and delays resolution of this action. Going forward, such failure to litigate would prejudice the defendants, who without timely responses by Murrell could not seek a timely resolution of the case.
The third Poulis factor is a history of dilatoriness. While “conduct that occurs one or two times is insufficient to demonstrate a ‘history of dilatoriness, '” Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 261, “[e]xtensive or repeated delay or delinquency constitutes a history of dilatoriness, such as consistent non-response to interrogatories, or consistent tardiness in complying with court orders.” Adams v. Trs. of N.J. Brewery Emps.' Pension Tr. Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 874 (3d Cir. 1994). A “party's problematic acts must be evaluated in light of [his] behavior over the life of the case.” Id. at 875. In this case, Murrell has failed to respond to our order to file an amended complaint on or before February 23, 2021, and the time to do so has passed. Thus, Murrell's extensive delay constitutes a history of dilatoriness.
The fourth Poulis factor is whether the conduct was willful or in bad faith. “Willfulness involves intentional or self-serving behavior.” Adams, 29 F.3d at 875. Here, Murrell's failure file an amended complaint in the face of our order leads to an inference that he has willfully abandoned this case.
The fifth Poulis factor is the effectiveness of alternate sanctions. Dismissal is a sanction of last resort, and it is incumbent upon a court to explore the effectiveness of lesser sanctions before ordering dismissal. Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868. Murrell is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, and given his refusal or inability to file an amended complaint, there is no evidence to suggest that paying monetary sanctions will remedy Murrell's deficiencies. Therefore, monetary sanctions would not be effective in this case. Moreover, Murrell's failure to respond to our order to file an amended complaint leads to an inference that further orders to him would not be effective. In this case, no sanction short of dismissal would be effective.
The sixth and final Poulis factor is the meritoriousness of the claim. In this inquiry, a claim will be deemed meritorious when the allegations of the complaint, if established at trial, would support recovery. Poulis, 747 F.2d at 870. Here, assuming for the sake of argument that Murrell stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, consideration of this factor cannot save his case, since he is now wholly noncompliant with his obligations as a litigant.
In sum, the Poulis factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. Murrell has abandoned this case. Thus, we will recommend that the court dismiss the case.
IV. Recommendations.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is IT IS RECOMMENDED that the court DISMISS this action in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 16th day of June, 2021.