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.

Cromerdie v. Wetzel

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

April 20, 2015

JEREMIAH CROMERDIE, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL Secretary Department of Corrections; SHIRLEY MOORE SMEAL Executive Deputy Secretary Department of Corrections; DAVID PITKINS Deputy Secretary Western Region Department of Corrections; MARK CAPOZZA Superintendent SCI — Pittsburgh; JOHN DOE Board Chairman Pennsylvania Parole Board; KIMBERLY BARKLEY Board Secretary, Pennsylvania Parole Board; MICHAEL WHITE Board Member, Pennsylvania Parole Board; JANE DOE Board Member Pennsylvania Parole Board, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MAUREEN P. KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint submitted in the above-captioned case, ECF No. 1-1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

II. REPORT

Plaintiff, Jeremiah Cromerdie, has presented a civil rights complaint against Defendants, alleging that Defendants violated his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, when they failed to grant him parole. On February 3, 2015, this Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to submit a signed Authorization Form by February 23, 2015, permitting the withdrawal of funds from his inmate account to complete his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 3, 2015, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause, returnable on March 16, 2015, requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to submit to the Court a signed Authorization Form by February 23, 2015, as directed in the Order dated February 3, 2015. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond or give 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 indictates 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 nearly ...


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.