UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 27, 2012
JESUS M. TORRES, PLAINTIFF
OWNER OR OWNERS OF THE : LEBANON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Malachy E. Mannion United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION*fn1
On May 17, 2011, the plaintiff, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 in which he alleges violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. No. 1). On the same day, the plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), and the proper authorization form. (Doc. No. 3). On June 7, 2011, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in support of his complaint. (Doc. No. 7). On June 10, 2011, the plaintiff filed a change of address to SCI Houtzdale. (Doc. No. 8).
On July 18, 2011, this court issued an order allowing process to issue.
(Doc. No. 9).
On July 2, 2012, a Report and Recommendation was issued by the undersigned (Doc. No. 31) and on July 20, 2012, was adopted by the district judge. (Doc. No. 32). In that order, the district judge allowed the plaintiff twenty
(20) days in which to file an amended complaint. On August 24, 2012, the undersigned issued an order granting a second extension of time until September 14, 2012, to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 37). In that order the plaintiff was advised that "Should the plaintiff fail to file his amended complaint within the required time period, a recommendation will be made to dismiss this action." To date, the court has not received a filing from the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's failure to abide by the courts' order constitutes a failure to prosecute this action and therefore this action is subject to dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), which states in pertinent part: "If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it."
The Third Circuit has long held that Rule 41(b) does not prohibit the sua sponte dismissal of actions against a defendant.
As was said in Link v. Wabash R.R., where the plaintiff argued that F.R.C.P. 41(b) by negative implication prohibits involuntary dismissal except on motion by the defendant, no restriction on the district court's power should be implied: "The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases."
Kenney v. Cal. Tanker Co., 381 F.2d 775, 777 (3d Cir. 1967) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R.. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
In the instant action, the court can not properly control its docket, move this action forward and properly protect the rights of all parties if the plaintiff fails to comply with orders issued by this court. Moreover, such conduct should not be condoned in light of the large prisoner dockets presently pending before the federal courts, all of which require prompt and thorough review.
Finally, since the plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, and has made no additional contact with the court, it justifies dismissal of this action.
On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the instant action be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Malachy E. Mannion
N O T I C E
Any party may obtain a review of the magistrate judge's above proposed determination pursuant to Rule 72.3, M.D.PA, which provides:
7 2 . 3 REVIEW OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGES ADDRESSING CASE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.