Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-1669
03-31-2020
THADDIUS WOOLEY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss this action for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
II. REPORT
A. Background
On December 26, 2019, the Court received a civil rights action from the Plaintiff, Thaddius Wooley, who is a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Greene, Pennsylvania (SCI Greene). The proposed Complaint alleges a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution arising out of the Defendants' failure to treat his hand, resulting in the loss of a finger. Named as Defendants are John Wetzel, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, an unnamed corrections officer and four nurses identified only as "John Doe" and "Jane Doe."
Plaintiff submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 2.) However, he did not submit "a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent)...for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint..., obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which [he] is or was confined." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Rather, the trust fund statement covered only the period from August 20, 2019 to December 23, 2019. Therefore, he did not complete the steps that are necessary to have his Complaint filed with the Court and served upon the Defendants.
On January 6, 2020, the Court issued an order (ECF No. 3) denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP and advising him that he had thirty days within which to either pay the filing fee or submit the proper accounting statement. He was notified that failure to do so would be construed as his decision not to prosecute the case. Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's order. As of this date, he has neither paid the fee nor submitted the appropriate inmate accounting statement. In fact, the Court has not received any submission from him since he initiated this case in December 2019.
B. Discussion
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the involuntary dismissal of an action or a claim, and, under this Rule, a district court has authority to dismiss an action sua sponte if a litigant fails to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See, e.g., Adams v. Trustees of New Jersey Brewery Employees' Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 871 (3d Cir. 1994). In Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit set forth the following six factors to be weighed in considering whether dismissal is proper under Rule 41(b):
(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.Id. at 868 (emphasis omitted). There is no "magic formula" or "mechanical calculation" to determine whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992), and not all of the six factors need to weigh in favor of dismissal before dismissal is warranted. Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1988). Rather, the court must "properly consider and balance" each of the six factors based on the record. Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868).
The first, third, and fourth Poulis factors (the extent of Plaintiff's personal responsibility, his history of dilatoriness, and whether his conduct is willful) each weigh heavily against him. He did not comply with the Court's order and has not communicated with the Court in any manner since he initiated this action.
The Court served its order upon Plaintiff at his address of record via first-class mail. There is nothing on the docket to suggest that he did not receive the Court's order. --------
The second Poulis factor assesses whether the adverse party has suffered prejudice because of the dilatory party's behavior. Here, there appears to be no specific prejudice to Defendants other than general delay cause by Plaintiff's failure to complete the steps necessary to have his case filed and served. Therefore, this factor should not be weighed against him. Similarly, the sixth Poulis factor (the meritoriousness of his claim) should not be weighed either in favor or against Plaintiff. All the Court has before it at this time are the allegations in the Complaint to which Defendants have not had the opportunity to respond since Plaintiff has not taken the necessary steps for the Complaint to be filed and served. Therefore, the Court does not have enough information at this stage to determine whether Plaintiff might ultimately prevail on his claim.
Finally, the fifth Poulis factor requires the Court to consider the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal. Under the circumstances presented here, where Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's order and appears to have no interest in pursuing this case, alternative sanctions would not be effective. Bowie v. Perry, 2019 WL 2412488, *2 (W.D. Pa. May 13, 2019) (Lanzillo, Mag. J.) ("alternative sanctions are unlikely to be effective against a party who refuses to communicate with the Court."), Report and Recommendation adopted by, 2019 WL 2410796 (W.D. Pa. July 7, 2019) (Baxter, J.). As such, this factor, along with the majority of the Poulis factors, weighs in favor of dismissal.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that this action be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, Plaintiff is allowed until April 17, 2020 to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Dated: March 31, 2020
/s/ Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
United States Magistrate Judge cc: Thaddius Wooley
LX-0936
SCI Greene
169 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370