United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani United States District Judge
Randy Lee Kinney ("Kinney"), a former Pennsylvania
state inmate who, at all times relevant, was housed at the
State Correctional Institution at Retreat, in Hunlock Creek,
Pennsylvania ("SCI-Retreat"), and the State
Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, in Frackville,
Pennsylvania ("SCI-Mahanoy"), initiated this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Named as
the sole Defendant is John Wetzel, Secretary of the
Department of Corrections. [Id.). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court
allegations of the complaint relate to Kinney's medical
care for the Hepatitis C viral infection. (Doc. 1). On
December 6,2017, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint
with affirmative defenses. (Doc. 17).
November 9,2017, Kinney filed a motion to appoint counsel.
(Doc. 16). On May 4,2018, the Court issued a Memorandum and
Order denying Kinney's motion to appoint counsel. (Docs.
18,19). The Court's mail was returned, unopened, as
undeliverable, and marked as inmate paroled. (Doc. 20).
Accordingly, on May 22,2018, the Court Ordered Kinney to
provide his current address. (Doc. 21). The Order warned
Kinney that, "[f]ailure to comply with this Order may
result in the dismissal of this case for failure to
prosecute." [Id.) (citing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b)). Kinney failed to reply. Kinney has not
communicated with the Court since November 9,2017, and has
not provided the Court with a current, updated address.
courts have the inherent power to dismiss an action for
failure to prosecute sua sponte. Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32,44 (1991). The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has identified six (6) factors
a court should consider before dismissing an action for
failure to prosecute:
(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.
Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d
863,868 (3d Cir. 1984) (emphases omitted).
of the Poulis factors need be satisfied to dismiss a
complaint. See Shahin v. Delaware, 345 F. App'x
815,817 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Mindek v. Rigatti,
964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992)).
Analysis of the Poulis Factors
The extent of the party's personal responsibility
present matter, Kinney is pro se and is solely
responsible for his actions. See Colon v. Karnes,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14692, at *7 (M.D. Pa. 2012)
("Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and thus is
responsible for his own actions."). At this point, the
Court has been waiting seven months for Kinney to communicate
with the Court, and can only conclude that he is personally
responsible for failing to inform the Court of his
The prejudice ...