Davis et al v. McMillan et al
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 1/27/2017. (sc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARY WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs
vs.
WARDEN ROBERT MCMILLAN,
et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 1:14-cv-00024
(Judge Kane)
MEMORANDUM
Background
This action was filed on January 8, 2014, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 by three inmates, Plaintiffs Anthony Davis, Gary
Williams and Jordon Lytton, who were incarcerated at the
Lackawanna County Prison, against Warden Robert McMillan, Sergeant
Blume and Corrections Officers Dodgson and Sohara, regarding the
conditions of confinement to which Plaintiffs were subjected on
November 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 1) On September 29, 2015, after
screening the complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”) the court dismissed several of Plaintiffs’ claims and
issued a scheduling order.
In the order the court stated that the
only claims which survived the court’s screening under the PLRA
were Eighth Amendment claims asserted by Williams and Lytton
against Sergeant Blume and Correctional Officers Dodgson and
Sohara for an incident where those defendants allegedly exposed
Plaintiffs to freezing temperatures on November 13, 2013.1
On
August 22, 2016, the court issued a second scheduling order which
authorized the parties to file dispositive motions within thrity
(30) days.
No dispositive motions were filed.
However, on
September 16, 2016, Plaintiff Williams filed a motion to withdraw
the complaint.
The motion was only signed by Williams.
Williams
appeared to have acted as the lead Plaintiff in this case and
Plaintiff Lytton was no longer incarcerated and had no contact
with the court since February 19, 2015. (Doc. No. 33.) By order of
November 7, 2016, the court terminated Plaintiff Williams from
this action based on the motion he filed.
Furthermore, pursuant
to Local Rule 41.12 the court advised Plaintiff Lytton that the
case would be dismissed unless he notified the court within 60
days that he desired to proceed with the case.
The sixty day
1. Plaintiff Davis was terminated from this action on July 21,
2014, because he failed to submit the filing fee or the forms
required to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Local Rule 41.1 states as follows: “Any action may be
dismissed by the court at any time no proceedings appear to have
been taken for one full calendar year. At least twenty eight (28)
days written notice of such intended dismissal shall be given to
all parties by the judge to whom such action is assigned, or by
the clerk, and the action shall thereafter be dismissed, unless
for good cause it shall be shown that the action should not be
dismissed. Dismissal under this rule shall be in addition to and
not in lieu of action which may be taken under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.”
2
period has long passed and Lytton has not had any contact with the
court.
An appropriate order will be entered.
3
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?