United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DALIE HC-9826 SCI Rockview Yana L. Warshafsky Office of the
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Cynthia Reed Eddy, United States Magistrate Judge
April 19, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing
Plaintiff to show cause by May 9, 2018, why this case should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for
Plaintiff's non-compliance with Court Orders. ECF No. 60.
time for responding to the Order to Show Cause has now
passed. Therefore, consistent with the April 19, 2018, Order,
and pursuant to Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co., 747, F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), the case now is
subject to dismissal.
district court has inherent power to dismiss a complaint, sua
sponte, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for a
plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of court.
Adams v. Trustees of New Jersey Brewery Employees'
Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 871 (3d Cir. 1994)
(“The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that a court
could dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b).”); Guyer
v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424, 1429 (3d Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, a court's decision to dismiss for failure to
prosecute is committed to the court's sound discretion.
See Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 161 F.3d
225, 230 (3d Cir. 1998) (“We review for abuse of
discretion a district court's dismissal for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b).”), abrogated on
other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v.
Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007). In
exercising that discretion, a district court should, to the
extent applicable, consider the six factors identified in
Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.,
747 F.2d 868 (3d Cir. 1984), when it levies the sanction of
dismissal of an action for failure to obey discovery
schedules, failure to prosecute, or to comply with other
procedural rules. Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47
F.3d 1311, 1330 n.18 (3d Cir. 1995).
Poulis, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
set forth the following six factors to be weighed in
considering whether dismissal is proper:
(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; and (6) the
meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
Id. at 868. These factors must be balanced in
determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction,
although not all need to weigh in favor of dismissal before
dismissal is warranted. Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d
152 (3d Cir. 1988). Consideration of these factors follows.
The extent of the party's personal
is proceeding in this matter pro se. Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment on February 16, 2018.
Plaintiff was ordered to respond by March 22, 2018. There is
no indication that Plaintiff failed to receive the motion or
any of the Orders the Court has mailed him. The
responsibility for his failure to comply is Plaintiff's
Prejudice to the adversary.
has prejudiced Defendants since his failure to respond to the
motion has made it difficult for this Court to determine
whether there are any genuine issues of material fact.
Plaintiff's complaint forced Defendant to retain
attorneys and expend time and energy to resolve this matter.
By failing to respond to the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, a decision on this matter has been unduly
A history of dilatoriness.
has made no effort to move this case forward and has ignored
this Court's Order to respond to Defendant's motion
and well as the Court's Order to Show Cause. This is
sufficient evidence, in the Court's view, ...