Opinion
Civil Action 22-cv-324
01-24-2023
RALPH OMAR WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER; DEPUTY WARDEN ADAM SMITH; and COUNTY EXECUTIVE RICH FITZGERALD, Respondents.
Hon. Christy Criswell Wiegand United States 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 for failure to prosecute, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Because this case is moot, dismissal should be with prejudice.
II. REPORT
At the time of filing, Petitioner Ralph Omar Williams (“Petitioner”) was a pretrial detainee held in Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This case was initiated on February 22, 2022 with the submission of a putative Complaint without filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1.
Based on a lack of clarity in the putative Complaint, this Court ordered Petitioner to clarify whether he sought habeas relief, or was pursuing his claims through a civil rights action. ECF No. 2. Petitioner failed to respond thereto, and on June 1, 2022, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed. ECF No. 3. On June 30, 2022, Petitioner responded with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) 1 challenging his pretrial detention in Case No. 2560-2021 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 4. Petitioner also submitted a notification form explicitly stating that he was pursuing habeas relief from his pretrial detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. ECF No. 5.
The Petition was submitted without filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed IFP. Accordingly, a Deficiency Order was issued on July 1, 2022 directing Petitioner to pay the fee or move for leave to proceed IFP. ECF No. 6. Petitioner did not respond to the Deficiency Order. On November 4, 2022, a Second Order to Show Cause was issued directing Petitioner to show good cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to pay the filing fee or file an IFP motion. ECF No. 10.
On November 21, 2022, Petitioner submitted an improperly-completed Consent to Magistrate Judge form. ECF No. 11. He also submitted an untitled document in which he complained that he was coerced to enter a plea of guilty in “case # 0002560 and . . . case # 0006649.” ECF No. 12 at 3. This Court takes judicial notice of the public dockets of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in Commonwealth v. Ralph Omar Williams, Docket No. CP-02-CR-6649-2021, and Commonwealth v. Ralph Williams, Docket No. CP-02-CR-2560-2021, both of which indicate that Petitioner was convicted on November 7, 2022. See https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/CaseSearch (last visited Jan. 23, 2023).
Attached to Petitioner's untitled filing at ECF No. 12 is what appears to be a copy of a request to prison staff to submit five dollars to the Clerk's Office - presumably to pay the filing fee for the present habeas action. ECF No. 12-1 at 1. However, as of the date of this writing, Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or moved for leave to proceed IFP. 2
A district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a litigant's 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, 850F.2dl52 (3d Cir. 1988).
Application of the Poulis factors is appropriate in the context of habeas cases as well as to civil rights actions. Harlacher v. Pennsylvania, No. 10-0267, 2010 WL 1462494, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 1445552 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2010) (applying Poulis to a habeas case). Consideration of the factors listed above is as follows.
(1) The extent of the party's personal responsibility
Petitioner is proceeding in this matter pro se, and is alone responsible for prosecuting this case and complying with orders of this Court. 3
(2) Prejudice to the adversary
Respondents have not been served the habeas petition. There is no indication that any Respondent has been prejudiced unfairly by Petitioner's conduct.
(3) A history of dilatoriness
Petitioner has refused to comply with multiple court orders in a timely manner. Despite the fact that more than ten months have passed, Petitioner has not paid the applicable filing fee or moved for leave to proceed IFP. Petitioner further has not updated his address with this Court in this matter. This is sufficient evidence, in this Court's view, to indicate that Petitioner does not intend to proceed with this case.
(4) Whether the party's conduct was willful or in bad faith
Viewing the record before this Court in the best possible light for Petitioner, it is unclear whether Petitioner was under the misapprehension that the filing fee had been paid. That said, Petitioner no longer is held at ACJ, and Petitioner has not seen fit to update his address with the Court since his state conviction. Based on the facts before this Court, it appears that Petitioner has willfully failed to prosecute this case.
See http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov/#/ (last visited Jan. 23, 2023) (showing that Petitioner is a state prisoner held at SCI-Camp Hill).
(5) Alternative sanctions
Petitioner currently is proceeding pro se, and there is no indication on the record that the imposition of costs or fees likely would be an effective sanction.
(6) Meritoriousness of the case
A habeas petition attacking state pretrial detention under Section 2241 is mooted upon the petitioner's conviction. See, e.g., Jones v. Mullen, No. 17-1366, 2017 WL 7691900, at *2 (W.D. 4 Pa. Dec. 8,2017) (citing cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 889027 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2018). The public record and Petitioner's own filings indicate that he no longer is a pretrial detainee, but instead is a convicted state prisoner. The present Petition thus is moot. If Petitioner intends to seek federal habeas relief from his conviction, he must file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But see id. § 2254(b)(1) (setting forth the requirement to exhaust claims in state court).
Because five of the six Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dismissal should be with prejudice, because any relief under Section 2241 was mooted by Petitioner's conviction. A certificate of appealability should be denied because jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable. See, e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability be denied.
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. 5
Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). 6