Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Waugh

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

July 3, 2014

THORNE THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. WAUGH; C/O BRUBAKER, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MAUREEN P. KELLY, Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint filed in the above-captioned case, ECF No. [4], be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

II. REPORT

Plaintiff, Thorne Thomas, an inmate formerly housed at the State Correctional Institution at Pine Grove ("SCI - Pine Grove"), has presented a civil rights complaint which he has been granted leave to prosecute without prepayment of costs. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by the excessive use of force in conjunction with a cell search and in racially based verbal harassment. On January 21, 2014, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file his Pretrial Statement by May 21, 2014. Because the Pretrial Statement was not received by May 21, 2014, this Court entered an Order to Show Cause on June 11, 2014, returnable on June 25, 2014, directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to timely file the Pretrial Narrative Statement. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond or given any other indication that he wishes to proceed with this action.

It is clear that the punitive dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders is left to the discretion of the court. 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, as 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 meritoriousness of the claim or defense.

Consideration of these factors suggests that the instant action should be dismissed.

Factors 1, 3, and 4 all relate to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's orders so that the case could proceed which weighs heavily against him. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's orders was not only solely his personal responsibility but his failure to do so even ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.