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.

Douglas v. Harper

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

February 17, 2015

RICKY DOUGLAS, Plaintiff,
v.
ORLANDO L. HARPER Warden; DEPUTY WARDEN ENRICK; C/O BOZACK; C/O YOUNG; C/O ZOLLER, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MAUREEN P. KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint filed in the above-captioned case, ECF No. 7, be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

II. REPORT

Plaintiff Ricky Douglas has presented a civil rights complaint against Defendants Orlando L. Harper, Deputy Warden Enrick, C/O Bozack, C/O Young and C/O Zoller, alleging that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, when they placed him in disciplinary and/or administrative custody upon confinement at the Allegheny County Jail, and otherwise subjected him to humiliation and verbal abuse, and tampered with his food trays.

On January 5, 2015, and January 7, 2015, this Court received copies of Orders dated October 7, 2014, and December 15, 2014, which were mailed to Plaintiff's address of record indicating that Plaintiff has been released. On January 9, 2015, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court informed of his current address. The Order to Show Cause was returned to the Court on February 3, 2015. 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 ...


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.