WILLIAM-WHITFIELD v. COMMONWEALTH LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON et al

Filing 7

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO DOCKET IN THIS CASE THE INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNT STATEMENT WILLIAM-WHITFIELD FILED IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-4513 AT DOC. NO. 6 ; THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. NO. 1 ) IS GRANTED , AND WILLIAM-WHITFIELD HAS LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO THE WARDEN OF THE CURRAN-FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; THE COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 2 ) IS DEEMED FILED; WILLIAM-WHITFIELDS C LAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, COMMONWEALTH LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON CASE WORKER OR INTAKE PROCESS AND LEHIGH COUNTY COURTHOUSE 72 HOUR REPORT OFFICE ARE DISMISSED AS FOLLOWS:; ETC. AS HEREIN; THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE FAILURE T O STATE A CLAIM; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO SEND WILLIAM-WHITFIELD A BLANK COPY OF THE COURTS FORM COMPLAINT FOR A PRISONER FILING A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION BEARING THE ABOVE CIVIL ACTION NUMBER; ETC. AS HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMIT H ON 1/6/22. 1/7/22 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE ALONG WITH A BLANK COPY OF THE COURTS FORM COMPLAINT FOR A PRISONER FILING A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION BEARING THE ABOVE CIVIL ACTION NUMBER, AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO BE SENT TO THE WARDEN OF THE CURRAN-FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.(mas) Modified on 1/7/2022 (mas).

Case 5:21-cv-04544-EGS Document 7 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMER WILLIAM-WHITFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH LEHIGH COUNTY
PRISON CASE WORKER OR INTAKE
PROCESS and LEHIGH COUNTY
COURTHOUSE 72 HOUR REPORT
OFFICE,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-4544

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2022, after considering the application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1), prisoner trust fund account statement, and complaint
(Doc. No. 2) filed by the pro se plaintiff, Amer William-Whitfield (“William-Whitfield”); and for
the reasons set forth in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to docket in this case the institutional account

statement William-Whitfield filed in Civil Action No. 21-4513 at Doc. No. 6;
2.

The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED,

and William-Whitfield has leave to proceed in forma pauperis;
3.

The plaintiff, # 1031719, shall pay the full filing fee of $350 in installments,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), regardless of the outcome of this case. The court directs the
Warden of the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility or other appropriate official to assess an
initial filing fee of 20% of the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to William-Whitfield’s
inmate account; or (b) the average monthly balance in William-Whitfield’s inmate account for the

Case 5:21-cv-04544-EGS Document 7 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 4

six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this case. The Warden or other appropriate
official shall calculate, collect, and forward the initial payment assessed pursuant to this order to
the court with a reference to the docket number for this case. In each succeeding month when the
amount in William-Whitfield’s inmate trust fund account exceeds $10.00, the Warden or other
appropriate official shall forward payments to the clerk of court equaling 20% of the preceding
month’s income credited to William-Whitfield’s inmate account until the fees are paid. Each
payment shall refer to the docket number for this case;
4.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to SEND a copy of this order to the Warden of

the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility;
5.

The complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DEEMED filed;

6.

William-Whitfield’s claims against the defendants, “Commonwealth Lehigh

County Prison Case Worker or Intake Process” and “Lehigh County Courthouse 72 Hour Report
Office” are DISMISSED as follows:
a.

To the extent that the plaintiff asserts official capacity claims against

“Lehigh County Courthouse 72 Hour Report Office,” the claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent the Eleventh Amendment bars the claims; and
b.

To the extent that the plaintiff asserts official capacity claims against

“Commonwealth Lehigh County Prison Case Worker or Intake Process,” the claims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
7.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE “Commonwealth Lehigh

County Prison Case Worker or Intake Process” and “Lehigh County Courthouse 72 Hour Report
Office” as defendants;

2

Case 5:21-cv-04544-EGS Document 7 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 4

8.

The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the failure to state

a claim;
9.

William-Whitfield 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 William-Whitfield’s claims against each defendant. The amended complaint
must also provide as much identifying information for any defendants as possible. WilliamWhitfield may refer to a defendant by last name only if that is the only identifying information he
possesses. If William-Whitfield 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, WilliamWhitfield should be mindful of the court’s reasons for dismissing the claims in his initial complaint
as explained in the court’s memorandum opinion. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the
clerk of court shall not make service until so ordered by the court;
10.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to send William-Whitfield a blank copy of the

court’s form complaint for a prisoner filing a civil rights action bearing the above civil action
number. William-Whitfield may use this form to file his amended complaint if he chooses to do
so; 2
11.

If William-Whitfield does not wish to amend his complaint and instead intends to

stand on his complaint as originally pleaded, he may file a notice with the court within thirty (30)

Without the name of at least one individual or entity, however, the court may be unable to direct service of any
amended complaint that William-Whitfield may file.
2
This form is available on the court’s website at: https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/forms/frmc1983f.pdf.
1

3

Case 5:21-cv-04544-EGS Document 7 Filed 01/06/22 Page 4 of 4

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; 3 and
12.

If William-Whitfield fails to file any response to this order, the court will conclude

that he intends to stand on his complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case. 4
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232, 241 (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 district court “expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would
result in the dismissal of those claims”).
4
See Weber, 939 F.3d at 239–40 (explaining that plaintiff’s intent to stand on complaint may be inferred from inaction
after issuance of order directing plaintiff to take action to cure defective complaint). The court also notes that the sixfactor 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 id. at 241 n.11 (treating “stand on the
complaint” doctrine as distinct from dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with
court’s order, which require assessment of 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

4