Opinion
3:23-CV-00222
06-14-2024
ANTHONY ROBINSON, Plaintiff v. DR. DALISMA, ROXY PLAYSO, NURSE ANTHONY, NURSE SANDY, NURSE DEBBIE, Defendants
STEPHANIE L. HAINES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) be then denied as moot.
II. Report
On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff, Anthony Robinson, an individual in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed a civil action against Dr. Dalisma, PA Playso, Nurse Anthony, Nurse Debbie, and Nurse Sandy in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County. Plaintiff's Complaint alleged that Defendants had failed to provide appropriate medical care in deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See ECF No. 1-1. On September 19, 2023, Defendants Dr. Dalisma and Roxy Playso removed this case to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction and in accordance 28 U.S.C. §1446. ECF No. 1.
Defendants Dr. Dalisma and Roxy Playso moved to dismiss Robinson's complaint. See ECF No. 5. In response, Robinson filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. The Court denied the then-pending motion to dismiss as moot based on the filing of Robinson's Amended Complaint. ECF No. 19. In the meantime, Defendants Dr. Dalisma and Roxy Playso moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 16. Robinson was ordered to file a response to this motion to dismiss by March 15, 2024. ECF No. 21.
Robinson failed to file a response by that date, and on April 26, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing him to explain his failure to comply with the Court's order or, in the alternative, to file a response to the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 24. He was further admonished that his failure to respond may result in this matter being dismissed for a failure to prosecute. Id. To date, Robinson has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss or the Court's Show Cause Order or to otherwise indicate that he wishes to proceed with this action. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Prisoner Locator website continues to list Robinson's current place of incarceration as SCI-Somerset, the address to which the Clerk of the Court has mailed the Court's scheduling order and Order to Show Cause. See Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Inmate Locator tool available at http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov/#/, which provides that Robinson is presently incarcerated at SCI-Somerset. See also Washington v. Gilmore, 2022 WL 819302, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2022) (taking judicial notice of the PA DOC's Inmate Locator website). The Court's mailings to Robinson have not been returned as undeliverable.
Punitive dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders is left to the discretion of the court. Somerville v. Finney, 2021 WL 2941662, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 13, 2021) (citing 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, 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.
Consideration of these factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the instant action. Factors 1, 3, and 4 all relate to Robinson's failure to comply with this Court's orders so that the case may proceed and weigh heavily against him. See e.g., Somerville, 2021 WL 2941662, at *2. With respect to the second factor - the prejudice caused to the adversary by Robinson's failure to comply with this Court's orders - there appears to be no specific prejudice to Defendants other than general delay and the expense of filing a motion seeking dismissal of the case. Factor No. 6 - the meritoriousness of the claim -weighs neither for nor against dismissal. Robinson's ongoing failure to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss limits the Court's assessment of the merits of Talley's claims and may signify his abandonment of his claims.. 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. Because this case was removed by Defendants, the Court has no information regarding Robinson's financial status. However, imposing a monetary sanction on a prisoner is typically effective due to a lack of resources or ability to pay. Failure to comply with the Court's order has prevented this Court from proceeding and indicates that Robinson has no serious interest in pursuing this case. It therefore appears that dismissal is the most appropriate action in response to Robinson's repeated noncompliance. Mindek, 964 F.2d at 1373. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint filed in the above-captioned case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and the pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, should be denied as moot.
III. Notice Regarding Objections
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).