United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
OPINION AND ORDER
MAUREEN P. KELLY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Omar Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”), a former inmate at
the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (“SCI
Pittsburgh”), has presented a civil rights complaint,
which he has been granted leave to prosecute without
prepayment of costs, alleging that Defendant C.O. Claflin
(“Defendant”) assaulted him on December 9, 2016,
while Plaintiff was incarcerated at SCI Pittsburgh in
violation of his right against cruel and unusual punishment
provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. ECF No. 5.
Complaint was filed on January 26, 2017, and on April 3,
2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to file a Motion for
Summary Judgment solely with respect to the issue of whether
Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. ECF Nos. 5,
18. On April 4, 2017, Plaintiff was then directed to file a
response to Defendant's request to file a Motion for
Summary Judgment and to do so on or before April 18, 2017.
Id. at 19. Plaintiff failed to file a response.
the fact that the Court had not yet granted Defendant's
Motion for Leave to file a Motion for Summary Judgment,
Defendant, apparently in the absence of opposition by
Plaintiff, nevertheless filed the Motion for Summary Judgment
on April 18, 2017. Id. at 21. On April 27, 2017, the
Court then issued two Orders: one granting Defendant's
Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment, and
another directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion for
Summary Judgment by May, 26, 2017. ECF Nos. 25, 26. Plaintiff
again failed to file a response.
such, on June 15, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to
respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as
ordered by the Court. Id. at 27. Plaintiff was
advised that unless good cause was shown on or before July 7,
2017, the case would be dismissed. Id. To date,
Plaintiff has failed to respond or show good cause for
failing to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment and has not otherwise responded to this Court's
Orders. In fact, the last time the Court has had any
communication from Plaintiff was on March 9, 2017, when he
informed the Court of a change of address. ECF No. 17.
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.
of these factors mandate that the instant action should be
1, 3, and 4 all relate to Plaintiff's failure to comply
with this Court's orders so that the case could proceed
which weigh heavily against him. It is not only
Plaintiff's sole responsibility to comply with court
orders but he has failed to do so on three separate
occasions. This, coupled with Plaintiff's failure to
respond to any of the orders even at this ...