WALLS v. LEE
ORDERED THAT LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915; THE COMPLAINT IS DEEMED FILED; THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE COURTS MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING THIS ORDER; WALL S MAY FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. ANY AMENDED COMPLAINT MUST IDENTIFY ALL DEFENDANTS IN THE CAPTION OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ADDITION TO IDENTIFYING THEM IN THE BODY OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SHA LL STATE THE BASIS FOR WALLSS CLAIMS AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHALL BE A COMPLETE DOCUMENT THAT DOES NOT RELY ON THE INITIAL COMPLAINT OR OTHER PAPERS FILED IN THIS CASE TO STATE A CLAIM. WHEN DRAFTING HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT, WALL S SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THE COURTS REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE CLAIMS IN HIS INITIAL COMPLAINT AS EXPLAINED IN THE COURTS MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING THIS ORDER. UPON THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE CLERK SHALL NOT MAKE SERVICE UNTIL SO ORDERED BY THE COURT AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO SEND WALLS A BLANK COPY OF THIS COURTS CURRENT STANDARD FORM TO BE USED BY A SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT FILING A CIVIL ACTION BEARING THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CIVIL ACTION NUMBER. WALLS MAY USE THIS FORM TO FILE HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT IF HE CHOOSES TO DO SO AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN M. YOUNGE ON 7/16/21. 7/16/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED WITH A COPY OF COMPLAINT FORMS.(jaa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-CV-1733
AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2021, upon consideration of Plaintiff Paul Wall’s
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 4), and Complaint (ECF No. 1) it is
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Complaint is DEEMED filed.
The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set
forth in the Court’s Memorandum accompanying this Order.
Walls may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Order. Any amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption of the amended
complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the amended complaint and shall state
the basis for Walls’s claims against each defendant. The amended complaint shall be a complete
document that does not rely on the initial Complaint or other papers filed in this case to state a
claim. When drafting his amended complaint, Walls should be mindful of the Court’s reasons
for dismissing the claims in his initial Complaint as explained in the Court’s Memorandum
accompanying this Order. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make
service until so ORDERED by the Court.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Walls a blank copy of this
Court’s current standard form to be used by a self-represented litigant filing a civil action bearing
the above-captioned civil action number. Walls may use this form to file his amended complaint
if he chooses to do so. 1
If Walls does not wish to amend his Complaint and instead intends to stand on his
Complaint as originally pled, he may file a notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of the
date of this Order stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing
the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the
civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (“If the
plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court
asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would
be appropriate.” (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976))); In re
Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703–04 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding “that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with prejudice the otherwise viable claims . . .
following plaintiffs’ decision not to replead those claims” when the district court “expressly
warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the dismissal of
7. If Walls fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that Walls
intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case. 2 See Weber,
939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff’s intent to stand on his complaint may be inferred
This form is available on the Court’s website at
The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d
Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff’s intention to stand on his complaint.
See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint” doctrine as distinct from
from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John Milton Younge
JUDGE JOHN MILTON YOUNGE
dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order, which
require assessment of the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v. Altria, 799 F. App’x 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir.
2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons
the case or makes adjudication impossible, as would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend his
complaint, leaving the case without an operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 F. App’x 116,
118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff’s conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to
abandon the case, or where the plaintiff's behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case
impossible, a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt.,
Inc., 292 F.R.D. 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“[T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the
six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes adjudication of
the matter impossible.” (citing cases)).
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?