THOMPSON v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPT et al

Filing 7

ORDERED THAT: 1. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 2. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK AS PARTICIPANT VIEW ONLY THE EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 2-1). 3. THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(II), FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE COURTS MEMORANDUM, AS FOLLOWS: A. ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. B. THOMPSONS CLAIMS AGAIN ST THE TWO JOHN DOE OFFICERS ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO TERMINATE THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A PARTY. 5. THOMPSON 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 BY THE COURT. 6. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO SEND THOMPSON A BLANK COPY OF THE COURTS FORM COMPLAINT FOR A NON-PRISONER FILING A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION BEARING THE ABOVE CIVIL ACTION NUMBER. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE MARY KAY COSTELLO ON 11/25/2024. 11/25/2024 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GREGORY ROBERT THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPT, et al., :
Defendants.
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-5491

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff Gregory
Robert Thompson’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se 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 Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark as “participant view only” the Exhibit

attached to the Complaint (ECF No. 2-1).
3.

The Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum, as follows:
a. Any claims against the Philadelphia Police Department are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
b. Thompson’s claims against the two John Doe officers are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the Philadelphia Police

Department as a party.
5.

Thompson 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 Thompson’s claims against each defendant. The amended complaint must also
provide as much identifying information for the defendants as possible, including the
Defendant’s first name, last name, and, where relevant, the Defendant’s badge number.
Thompson may refer to a defendant by last name only if that is the only identifying information
possessed. If Thompson wishes to name individuals for whom he does not have any identifying
information, he may refer to those individuals as John Doe #1, John Doe #2, etc. 1 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, Thompson
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.
6.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Thompson a blank copy of the Court’s

form complaint for a non-prisoner filing a civil rights action bearing the above civil action
number. Thompson may use this form to file his amended complaint if he chooses to do so.
7.

If Thompson 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

1

Without the name of at least one individual or entity, however, the Court may be unable to
direct service of any amended complaint that Thompson may file. Physical descriptions of the
Defendants may also serve as identifying information for John Doe Defendants.
2

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”).
8.

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

Thompson 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 from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a
defective complaint).
BY THE COURT:

MARY KAY COSTELLO, J.
2

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 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)).
3