United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MAUREEN P. KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge.
It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint filed in the above-captioned case, ECF No. 3, be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff Jarrick Dennison ("Plaintiff"), an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette ("SCI Fayette"), has presented a civil rights complaint, which he has been granted leave to prosecute without prepayment of costs, alleging that Defendants Sharon Berrier, Health care Administrator at SCI-Fayette, Michael Herbik, at SCI-Fayette, Michelle Howard Diggs, Physician Assistant at SCI-Fayette, and Jane or John Doe, Nurse at SCI-Fayette, violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical treatment after he injured his hand.
On November 6, 2014, Defendant Herbik filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19, and on November 10, 2014, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss on or before December 10, 2014. 11/10/15 Text Order. Similarly, on November 10, 2014, Defendant Berrier filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21, and on November 12, 2014, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Berrier's Motion to Dismiss on or before December 12, 2014. 11/12/14 Text Order. Plaintiff failed to file a response to either Motion, and on January 9, 2015, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, which was returnable on January 22, 2015. 1/9/2015 Text Order. To date, Plaintiff has not only failed to respond to the Motions to Dismiss but has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause and has not given the Court 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 ...