STEVENS-NUNEZ v. BRISTOL BOROUGH MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM ORDER THAT LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED. THE COMPLAINT IS DEEMED FILED. THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED HEREIN. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO TERMINATE THE BRISTOL BOROUGH MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND BRISTOL POLICE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD AS DEFENDANTS. STEVENS-NUNEZ MAY FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. UPON THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THE CLERK SHALL NOT MAKE SERVICE UNTIL SO ORDERED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO SEND STEVENS-NUNEZ A BLANK COPY OF THE COURTS FORM COMPLAINT FOR A NON-PRISONER FILING A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION. IF STEVENS-NUNEZ DOES NOT WISH TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT AND INSTEAD INTENDS TO STAND ON HER COMPLAINT AS ORIGINALLY PLED, SHE 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, ETC. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 6/3/24. 6/3/24 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE WITH FORMS; E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KAREN MARIE STEVENS-NUNEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRISTOL BOROUGH MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-1678

ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff Karen Marie
Stevens-Nunez’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), Financial Statement (ECF
No. 4), 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 for the reasons in the Court’s Memorandum as

follows:
a. Stevens-Nunez’s claims under the Torture Act and the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
and
b. Stevens-Nunez’s remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
4.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate The Bristol Borough Municipal

Administration and Bristol Police Civilian Complaint Review Board as Defendants.
5.

Stevens-Nunez 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 Stevens-Nunez’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. The amended complaint may not rely solely on exhibits to state a
claim. When drafting her amended complaint, Stevens-Nunez should be mindful of the Court’s
reasons for dismissing the claims in her 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.
6.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Stevens-Nunez a blank copy of the

Court’s form complaint for a non-prisoner filing a civil rights action bearing the above civil
action number. Stevens-Nunez may use this form to file her amended complaint if she chooses
to do so.
7.

If Stevens-Nunez does not wish to amend her Complaint and instead intends to

stand on her Complaint as originally pled, she 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, she may file an appropriate notice with the
district court asserting her 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

2

“expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the
dismissal of those claims”).
8.

If Stevens-Nunez fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude

that Stevens-Nunez intends to stand on her Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this
case. 1 See Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff’s intent to stand on her
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/ Juan R. Sánchez
JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, J.

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 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 she 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