Opinion
2:22-CV-01663
06-14-2024
QUINTEZ TALLEY, Plaintiff v. C/O LACOTTA, PA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, RHONDA HOUSE, LT. STARCHOK, SUP. E. ARMEL, KERI MOORE, UNKNOWN 3D SHIFT OFFICIALS, UNKNOWN RHU CAPT., LT. FISHER, C/O GLOVER, C/O JOHNSON, and SECRETARY GEORGE M. LITTLE, Defendants
NORA BARRY FISCHER, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ECF NO. 40
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint (ECF Nos. 8 and 28) be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) be then denied as moot.
II. Report
On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Quintez Talley (“Talley”), an individual in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights action against Defendants C/O Lacotta, PA Dept of Corrections, Rhonda House, Lt. Starchok, Sup. E. Armel, Keri Moore, and Unknown 3d Shift Officials. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that from September 7 - 10, 2022, while housed on the “L” Block at SCI-Fayette, his sleep was disrupted by the corrections officers' ongoing practice of playing the volume of the television at a loud volume at all hours of the night depriving him of sleep and failing to accommodate his insomnia disability. See ECF No. 8. He brings the lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and also asserts several state law tort claims. Complaint, at ¶ 11.
Concomitantly with filing this case, Talley filed an almost identical civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (“MDPA”). In that case, the events giving rise to the lawsuit also occurred at SCI-Fayette, but occurred between September 13 - 19, 2022. On January 9, 2024, the MDPA case was transferred from the MDPA to the Western District of Pennsylvania and docketed at Case No. 24-cv-00033. On January 18, 2024, the Court consolidated the two cases, with Case No. 2:22-cv-1663 being designated the lead case. ECF No. 27. The Complaint filed at Case No. 24-cv-00033 was refiled in Case No. 2:22-cv-1663 as the Supplemental Complaint. ECF No. 28.
On February 21, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint. ECF No. 40. Talley was ordered to file a response to the motion to dismiss by April 1, 2024. ECF No. 42.
Talley 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 by May 17, 2024. ECF No. 43. He was further admonished that his failure to respond may result in this matter being dismissed for a failure to prosecute. Id. To date, Talley 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 Talley's current place of incarceration as SCI-Camp Hill, 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 Talley is presently incarcerated at SCI-Camp Hill. 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 Talley 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 meritorious ness 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 Talley'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 Talley'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 6 - the meritoriousness of the claim - neither weighs for nor against dismissal. Talley'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. There are no alternative sanctions that would adequately address Talley's failure to respond to Defendants' motion. Imposing a monetary sanction would not be effective as Talley appears to be impecunious. See Order Granting Leave to File in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6). Moreover, failure to comply with the Court's order has prevented this Court from proceeding and indicates that Talley has no serious interest in pursuing this case. It therefore appears that dismissal is the most appropriate action in response to Talley's repeated noncompliance. Mindek, 964 F.2d at 1373. Accordingly, the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint filed in the above-captioned case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and the pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 40, 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).