The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rufe, J.
In this lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has alleged that the medical treatment he received while incarcerated at Berks County Prison contravened his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants, the Warden of Berks County Prison and various medical providers at the Prison, have filed motions seeking dismissal of the case based upon Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery.
The case has a troubled procedural history. Shortly after filing suit, Plaintiff, who filed the complaint pro se, requested appointment of counsel. The Court ordered that the Clerk of Court attempt to find counsel to represent Plaintiff by referring the case to this District's Prisoners Civil Rights Panel; this process unfortunately took several years. Once volunteer counsel was appointed, the case was delayed further pending the filing and resolution of various motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed certain claims, but permitted Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims of indifference to serious medical needs to proceed. However, Plaintiff made no efforts to move the case forward after the Court's ruling of January 30, 2012. After several months, the Court sought a status report from the parties to determine whether Plaintiff intended to continue to prosecute the case, held a scheduling conference, and on November 2, 2012, ordered the parties to complete fact discovery by March 1, 2013. Defendants served written discovery, but Plaintiff did not respond. The Court ordered counsel and the parties to attend a settlement conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells on January 7, 2013, but Plaintiff did not attend. *fn1 Defendants scheduled Plaintiff's deposition, but Plaintiff did not appear. *fn2
On February 26, 2013, counsel for Defendant Wagner filed a motion
seeking involuntary dismissal of the case for failure to cooperate
with discovery (the other defendants filed similar motions shortly
thereafter). The Court scheduled a hearing for March 7, 2013, and
directed counsel for Plaintiff to make all reasonable efforts to
notify Plaintiff of the hearing. In doing so, counsel learned from
Plaintiff's girlfriend that Plaintiff had been incarcerated in Berks
County Prison since January 25, 2013. The Court then rescheduled the
hearing for March 13, 2013, so that Plaintiff could participate by
video conference from the Prison. The Court heard from Plaintiff and
all counsel at the hearing; after the hearing, the Court ordered that
counsel submit the available and relevant documents to the Court for
in camera review.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes a district court to
sanction a party for failure to obey an order compelling disclosure or discovery,
failure to make the requisite Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, and
failure to appear for his own deposition, serve answers or objections
to interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection of
documents. *fn3 Among the available sanctions
is dismissal of the action against the disobedient party,
*fn4 but the sanction of dismissal is "disfavored
absent the most egregious circumstances," and any doubts should be
resolved in favor of adjudication on the merits. *fn5
In determining whether the harsh sanction of dismissal is
appropriate, the Court must weigh the following six factors:
(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 alternate sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claims or defenses. *fn6 Although the Court must address each factor, each factor need not weigh in favor of dismissal for the trial court to dismiss a claim. *fn7
A. Personal Responsibility
There is no dispute that Plaintiff, not his counsel, bears responsibility for the complete failure to respond to discovery or to appear for the settlement conference. Counsel attempted to reach Plaintiff by mail and by telephone, but was at times unable to communicate with Plaintiff for extended periods. At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that he had tried to keep up with the case, but acknowledged that he had lost his cell phone and that he did not notify his attorney of address changes. Plaintiff also stated that a box of documents that he had left with someone for safekeeping could no longer be located. The Court notes that Plaintiff was not incarcerated when the scheduling order was entered, when discovery was served, or when the settlement conference was held. This factor weighs heavily against Plaintiff.
B. Prejudice to Defendants
Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests or to appear for deposition impedes Defendants' ability to prepare effectively for the impending trial and creates prejudice to Defendants. *fn8 Years after the events at issue, Defendants have only Plaintiff's Complaint and the medical records from the prison and the hospital, which Defendants obtained; no other documents have been ...