United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge.
It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint filed in the above-captioned case, ECF No. 1, be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff Tommy Beaumont ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint on January 8, 2015, ECF No. 1, without the requisite $400.00 filing fee or a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis . On January 15, 2015, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to submit to the Court either the $400.00 filing fee or a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and to do so on or before February 5, 2015. ECF: 1/15/2015 Text Order. Plaintiff was also advised in the Order that his failure to provide the requisite filing fee and/or paperwork could result in the case being dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Id.
Thereafter, on February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis which was denied by this Court in an Order dated February 17, 2015, having found that Plaintiff had sufficient funds available to him to pay the $400.00 filing fee. ECF Nos. 2, 3. Plaintiff was also advised that he had until March 1, 2015, to pay the entire $400.00 filing fee "or the case will be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute." ECF No. 3, p. 2 (emphasis added). To date, Plaintiff has failed to pay the requisite filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court's Order.
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 ...