United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
who has been represented by counsel throughout this case,
filed suit against the City of Philadelphia, Sheriff Jewell
Williams, and Deputy Sheriff's Officer David Cervino,
asserting claims of negligence, recklessness, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and deliberate indifference
in violation of the United States Constitution and the
Pennsylvania Constitution. After multiple rounds of motions
to dismiss, Plaintiff's remaining claims relate to
allegations of deliberate indifference.
has repeatedly failed to prosecute this case. First,
Plaintiff did not effect timely service of the summons and
the operative Amended Complaint upon Defendant Cervino, and
never responded to the Court's Order to show cause as to
why this Defendant should not be dismissed for failure to
settlement conference was scheduled for June 26, 2019 before
Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells. Because Plaintiff
and his counsel did not appear for the conference,
which was scheduled in an order dated May
14, 2019,  this Court ordered Plaintiff and his
counsel to show cause as to why this case should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute no later than July 12,
2019. No. response was filed.
also failed to participate in discovery, which was set to
close on July 8, 2019. Defendants' counsel filed a motion
to compel Plaintiff's deposition and discovery responses
on July 8, 2019. Again, Plaintiff filed no response.
determining whether the harsh sanction of dismissal is
appropriate where the Plaintiff has failed to prosecute, the
Court weighs the following six factors:
(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 alternate sanctions; and (6) the
meritoriousness of the claims or defenses.
factor need not weigh in favor of dismissal for the Court to
dismiss a case. Here, Plaintiff was required to appear
personally for the settlement conference and did not.
Defendants' motion also suggests that Plaintiff's
counsel stated he had been unable to reach Plaintiff.
Defendants are prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure to
prosecute his case, as such inaction “frustrates and
delays the resolution of this action.” There has been a
repeated failure to respond to motions or court orders.
Although Plaintiff has asserted some meritorious claims,
without any communication from Plaintiff in response to the
Court's Orders to Show Cause, or to respond to discovery
or appear for a deposition or settlement conference, the case
cannot proceed at this time. Thus, upon balancing all of
the factors and considering that without Plaintiff's
participation there are no appropriate alternative sanctions,
the Court will dismiss the case without
order will be entered.
 See generally Mem. Op. [Doc.
No. 10]; Order [Doc. No. 15].
 Order [Doc. No. 21].
 According to Defendants, “[t]hat
morning Plaintiff's counsel called Judge Wells'
chambers, as well as defense counsel, to inform them that he
could not get in contact with his client and request that the
conference be canceled. On a conference call later that
afternoon, Plaintiff's counsel explained that he had not
been in contact with his client and he was ...