Opinion
Civil Action 20-1284
05-16-2022
ACEY REAVIS, Plaintiff, v. PAUL AURANDT, BURKOVICH, and LISA DUNCAN, and JAROD ANKROM, Consolidated Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Acey Reavis (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pro se against employees of the State Correctional Institution at Fayette (“SCI-Fayette”), where he was formerly incarcerated. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff's claims arise out of allegations that he was denied sufficient mental health treatment at SCI-Fayette. For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on July 21, 2020. ECF No. 1. He has not participated in this action since shortly thereafter, on December 22, 2020. ECF No. 21. As discussed below, Plaintiff never updated his address of record after being released from prison around June 2021, and he has failed to comply with numerous Court Orders.
This action was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and it was subsequently transferred and consolidated with another lawsuit that Plaintiff filed at Case No. 20-1377. Further detail regarding Plaintiff's claims and the procedural history are included in the Reports and Recommendations relative to Defendants' motions at ECF Nos. 29 and 37.
1. Failure to Respond to Motion for More Definite Statement
On March 4, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for More Definite Statement and Brief in Support, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). ECF Nos. 25 and 26. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond on or before April 5, 2021. ECF No. 27.
After Plaintiff did not file a Response by the designated date, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on April 14, 2021. ECF No. 28. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause by May 4, 2021 why Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement should not be granted due to Plaintiff's failure to respond. ECF No. 28. Again, Plaintiff did not respond.
The undersigned submitted a Report and Recommendation on June 15, 2021, recommending that the Motion for More Definite Statement be granted. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff did not file Objections.
2. Failure to Update Address
On December 8, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing service, in which it ordered Plaintiff to “keep the court advised of his current address at all times throughout this litigation,” and required him to notify the Court in writing of any changes to his address, noting that Plaintiff's failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action. ECF No. 19.
On June 16, 2021, Defendants' counsel notified the Court that Plaintiff had just been released from prison on June 9, 2021 and provided the Court with Plaintiff's current address. ECF No. 30. Based on this information, the Court extended Plaintiff's deadline to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and it reminded Plaintiff of his obligation to keep the Court apprised of changes to his mailing address.
To date, Plaintiff has not updated his address of record with the Court.
3. Failure to Respond to Motion to Dismiss
On September 9, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. ECF No. 33. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by November 17, 2021. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff did not respond. The undersigned submitted a Report and Recommendation on December 13, 2021, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be denied as premature. ECF No. 37.
4. Failure to Amend Complaint
On February 16, 2021, the Court adopted the foregoing Reports and Recommendations, as supplemented. ECF Nos. 38 and 39. The Court stated:
The Court recognizes that Reavis has failed to respond to the court's orders for a significant period of time. Nevertheless, the court finds no clear error in the magistrate judge's recommendation that the defendant's motion to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute be denied (ECF No. 37). Although perhaps unlikely, Reavis could be waiting on a decision about the motion for more definite statement. That motion is now resolved. Reavis will be given a firm and definite deadline to file a Second Amended Complaint in compliance with R&R # 29. If he fails to do so, defendants will have the opportunity to seek dismissal of this case.
ECF No. 38 at 2.
Based on this, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 28, 2022. Id. However, Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint to date.
5. Failure to Respond to Order to Show Cause
On April 18, 2022, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to show good cause by May 9, 2022 why this this action should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause.
B. DISCUSSION
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.
(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.
Upon review, the Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff is solely responsible for prosecuting his claims. Second, this action was filed nearly two years ago and has failed to progress beyond the pleadings. Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action may prejudice Defendants by delaying their ability to timely investigate and resolve Plaintiff's claims.
With respect to the third and fourth factors, Plaintiff has a history of dilatoriness in failing to respond to the Court's Orders or to update his address of record. Given Plaintiff's complete lack of participation in this action over significant period of time, this conduct appears to be willful.
The sixth factor, the merits of the claim, should also be weighed against Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not set forth any coherent claim. Plaintiff refused to amend his Complaint in accordance with the Court's instructions.
The final factor to consider is the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, it does not appear that monetary sanctions are appropriate. Moreover, Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's Orders or to update his address of record suggests that Plaintiff has no interest in currently prosecuting this action. For these reasons, dismissal is the most appropriate sanction.
C. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the instant action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
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.