FRAZIER v. TRANSUNION LLC

Filing 5

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF JIBREEL FRAZIERS MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS #1 , AND COMPLAINT #2 , IT IS 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 STATED IN THE COURTS MEMORANDUM. FRAZIER MAY FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. IF FRAZIER 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. IF FRAZIER FAILS TO FILE ANY RESPONSE TO THIS ORDER, THE COURT WILL CONCLUDE THAT FRAZIER INTENDS TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT AND WILL ISSUE A FINAL ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 2/5/24. 2/5/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(bw) Modified on 2/5/2024 (bw).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JIBREEL FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANSUNION LLC,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-0264

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff Jibreel
Frazier’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), and Complaint (ECF No. 2), it is
ORDERED that:
1.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

2.

The Complaint is DEEMED filed.

3.

The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated

in the Court’s Memorandum.
4.

Frazier 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 Frazier’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, Frazier should be mindful of the Court’s
reasons for dismissing the claims in his initial Complaint as explained in the Court’s
Memorandum. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until
so ORDERED by the Court.

5.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Frazier 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. Frazier may use this form to file his amended complaint if
he chooses to do so.
6.

If Frazier 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 those claims”).
7.

If Frazier fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that

Frazier intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case. 1 See

1

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
her complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint”
doctrine as distinct from 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
2

Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff’s intent to stand on his complaint may be
inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective
complaint).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ R. Barclay Surrick
R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her 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)).
3