United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MAUREEN P. KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Nur Qadr ("Plaintiff") is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") and is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest. Plaintiff has presented a civil rights complaint, which he has been granted leave to prosecute without prepayment of costs, bringing claims against Defendants relative to their alleged failure to recognize and/or accommodate Plaintiff's religious faith. Amongst the named Defendants are Mr. Michael Overmyer, Mr. Oberlander, Deputy J. Horton, Mr. Dombroski, Mr. William Cole, Ms. C. Kennedy, Ms. Seigal, Mr. McQuown, and Ms. Smith, RN (collectively, "the Commonwealth Defendants"). For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Complaint filed in this matter be dismissed as to the Commonwealth Defendants for failure to prosecute.
On May 5, 2015, a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth Defendants. ECF No. 35. On May 7, 2015, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss by June 8, 2015. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff failed to file a response as ordered and on June 12, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed as to the Commonwealth Defendants for Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff was also advised that his failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause by June 22, 2015, would result in this Court recommending that the case against the Commonwealth Defendants be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id . To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order to Show Cause or given any other indication that he wishes to proceed with his case against the Commonwealth Defendants.
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 as to the Commonwealth Defendants.
Factors 1, 3, and 4 all relate to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's orders so that the case could proceed against the Commonwealth Defendants and weigh heavily against him. Not only is complying with court orders solely Plaintiff's personal responsibility but he has repeatedly failed to do so. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and his subsequent ...