Griffin v. Career Team

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION - Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 12/12/14. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CALVIN 0. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 12-512-LPS

v.

CAREER TEAM,
Defendant.

Calvin 0. Griffin, Bear, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Geoffrey Graham Grivner, Esquire, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., Wilmington, Delaware.
Counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

December 12, 2014
Wilmington, Delaware

:t~t~
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Calvin 0. Griffin ("Plaintiff') proceeds pro se and has paid the filing fee. He

alleges employment discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 on the basis of gender. The
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Presently before the Court is Defendant's
motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. (D.I. 15) For the reasons that follow, the Court will
grant the motion.

II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 24, 2012. (D.I. 2) He alleges employment

discrimination on the basis of gender when his employment was terminated by Defendant on March
15, 2010. On September 7, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not
be dismissed for failure to serve. (D.I. 6) Plaintiff sought additional time and Defendant was
ultimately served onJuly 1, 2013, and answered the Complaint on August 12, 2013. Plaintiff has
taken no action since April 26, 2013, when he sought the additional time to effect service upon
Defendant. (D.I. 9)
Defendant moves for dismissal for failure to prosecute. (D.I. 15) Plaintiff did not file a
response to the motion.

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b), a court may dismiss an action "[f]or failure of the 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 Flam·s 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

(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 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 Pou/is v. State form f'zre and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); see also Emerson v.

Thiel Col!., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002); Huertas v. United States Dep't if Educ~, 408 F. App'x 639
(3d Cir. Dec. 13, 2010).
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 dismiss2.l for failure to prosecute
involves a factual inquiry, it can be appropriate even if some of the Potdis factors are not satisfied.

See Hicks v. Feenry, 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) (holding that not all Pou/is factors must weigh in favor of
dismissal).

IV.

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the Pou/is 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, Defendant is 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. Roda!e Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 222-23 (3d Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiffs
failure to pursue discovery, coupled with the length of time that has already passed, impedes
Defendant's ability to prepare its trial strategy.
As to the third factor, there is a history of dilatoriness given that Plaintiff failed to timely
serve the Complaint and did not do so until he was warned the case would be dismissed. Even then,

2

the Complaint was not served until July 2013, more than a year after it had been filed. As to the
fourth factor, because 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, but notes that Plaintiff failed to
respond to the motion to dismiss. As to the fifth factor, there are no alternative sanctions the Court
could effectively impose. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and although he paid the filing fee, he sought, but
was denied, in fa17J1a pauperis. Hence, it is doubtful that monetary sanc1:ions 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, but notes that it is Defendant's position that Plaintiff was
terminated for reasons other than on the basis of gender.
Given Plaintiffs failure to take any action in this case since April 2013, his failure to pursue
any discovery, and his failure to respond to Defendant's dispositive motion, the Court finds that the

Pou/is 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. 15)
An appropriate Order follows.

3