Thomas v. Morgan et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/17/14. (mdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WAYNE C. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 10-907-LPS
WARDEN PHILLIP MORGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Wayne C. Thomas, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se
Plaintiff.
I
Dennis Spivack, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington,
Delaware. Counsel for Defendants Warden Phillip Morgan and Major Phillip Parker.
i
I
l
I
MEMORANDUM OPINION
March 17, 2014
Wilmington, Delaware
STARK, U.S. District Judge:
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Wayne C. Thomas ("Plaintiff'), an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution ("HRYCI) in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action on October 22, 2010, alleging
constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Presently before the Court is Defendants
Warden Phillip Morgan's ("Warden Morgan") and Major Phillip Parker's ("Parker") (together
"State Defendants") motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to
prosecute. (D.I. 21) For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute.
II.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, was removed from the general
population and placed in isolation on September 11,2010. On September 13,2010, Plaintiff
received a disciplinary sanction of one year in isolation for four disciplinary write-ups. Parker
imposed the sanction, and it was approved by Warden Morgan. Plaintiff alleges that the
conditions placed upon him qualify as punishment as they impose materially greater restrictions
than those imposed upon convicted inmates at the HYRCI.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (D .I. 11) on May 3, 2011. Plaintiff did not respond
to the motion. The Court entered a scheduling order (D.I. 17) on August 8, 2012 that provided a
discovery deadline of February 11, 2013. State Defendants propounded discovery (D.I. 18, 19)
upon Plaintiff on January 9, 2013. Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery requests. State
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (D.I. 21) on March 11,2013. Plaintiff did not
file a response. On June 3, 2013, the Court entered an order (D.I. 27) for Plaintiff to file a
1
response and warned Plaintiff that should he fail to do so, the Court would decide the motion on
the papers submitted. Plaintiff did not file a response.
State Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiffs
relocation to administrative segregation was due to a legitimate penological interest; (2) Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3) they are immune from liability in their official
capacities under the eleventh amendment; (4) they are entitled to qualified immunity; and
(5) Plaintiff failed to prosecute his claims or participate in discovery.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action "[f]or failure ofthe
plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules] or any order of court .... " Although
dismissal is an extreme sanction that should only be used in limited circumstances, dismissal is
appropriate if a party fails to prosecute the action. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d
1311, 1330 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Court considers the following factors to determine whether dismissal is warranted:
(1) the extent ofthe 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 ofthe party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions
other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of other sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of
the claim or defense. See Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.
1984); see also Emerson v. Thiel Coli., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002); Huertas v. United
States Dep't ofEduc., 408 F. App'x 639 (3d Cir. Dec. 13, 2010).
'
2
r
l
t
l
The Court must balance the factors and may dismiss the action even if all of them do not
weigh against Plaintiff. See Emerson, 296 F .3d at 190. Because dismissal for failure to
prosecute involves a factual inquiry, it can be appropriate even if some ofthe Poulis factors are
not satisfied. See Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1998); Curtis T Bedwell & Sons,
Inc. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 683, 696 (3d Cir. 1988).
IV.
DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the Poulis factors warrant dismissal of Plaintiffs case. First, as a
pro se litigant, Plaintiff is solely responsible for prosecuting his claim. See Hoxworth v. Blinder,
Robinson & Co., 980 F.2d 912,920 (3d Cir. 1992). Second, State Defendants are prejudiced by
Plaintiffs failure to prosecute. Prejudice occurs when a plaintiffs failure to prosecute burdens
the defendant's ability to prepare for trial. See Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218,222-23
(3d Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiffs failure to take any action in this case since March 1, 2011 (when
he submitted his USM-285 forms for service) and his failure to respond to discovery requests
impede State Defendants' ability to prepare his trial strategy.
As to the third factor, there is a history of dilatoriness, as Plaintiff did not respond to
discovery requests, the motion to dismiss, or the motion currently pending before the Court. As
to the fourth factor, since Plaintiff has taken no action for a lengthy period of time, the Court is
unable to discern whether his failure to prosecute is willful or in bad faith. As to the fifth factor,
there are no alternative sanctions the Court could effectively impose. Because Plaintiff proceeds
prose and in forma pauperis, it is doubtful that monetary sanctions would be effective. As to the
sixth factor, the merits of the claim, the Court cannot determine this factor based upon a review
of the pleadings and lack of discovery.
3
Given Plaintiffs failure to take any action in this case since March 2011, the failure to
provide any discovery, and the failure to respond to State Defendants' dispositive motions, the
Court finds that the Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute (D .I. 21 ). 1
I
An appropriate Order follows.
I
~
f
r
I
i
r
i
r
~
t
~
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
t
1
Because dismissal is appropriate for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute, the Court will not
address the other grounds for summary judgment raised by State Defendants.
4
I
I
I
''
i
J
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?