Parks v. Argueta et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM re REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 1/18/17. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARRELL PARKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
S. ARGUETA, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:15-cv-1514

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) filed by the
Magistrate Judge in which she recommends that Plaintiff Parks’ action be
dismissed for failure to prosecute, or alternatively, that remaining Defendants’
motion to dismiss and for summary judgment be granted based on the merits. The
Report and Recommendation was filed on December 5, 2016, and objections were
due on December 19, 2016. As of the date of this memorandum and accompanying
order, objections have not been filed.
I.

Background
At the time Plaintiff filed this complaint, he was an inmate at the United

States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”). Plaintiff
named forty-two USP Lewisburg officials as defendants in their individual and
official capacities. (Doc. 1.) After initial screening of the complaint, a report and
recommendation was filed recommending that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief
be dismissed, as well as his claim against ten Defendants. (Doc. 9.) This report and

recommendation was adopted. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff’s remaining claims against
thirty-two Defendants consist of retaliation, sexual harassment, assault and battery,
cruel and unusual punishment, excessive force, and inadequate medical
care/deliberate indifference. (See Doc. 1.)
II.

Discussion
The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss and

for summary judgment be granted on the basis that Plaintiff failed to timely oppose
the motion after being granted three extensions of time in which to do so. (Doc. 39,
pp. 1-2.) Said failure is in violation of Middle District Local Rule 7.6. Plaintiff was
aware of his obligation pursuant to the court’s Standing Practice Order. (Doc. 5,
p. 2.) While this court believes that the facts of this case would support a dismissal
under Local Rule 7.6, both the Magistrate Judge and this court believe that, in
abundance of caution, the action will be dismissed after an analysis of the factors
set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.
1984).
The court must balance the following factors under Poulis in determining
whether to dismiss a case:
(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2)
the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to
meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a
history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the
party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the
effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which
2

entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the
meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly addressed each of these
factors. (Doc. 39, pp. 10-29.)
A.

Party’s personal responsibility
Plaintiff filed this action pro se and is therefore responsible for prosecuting

this action. (Id. at 10.) He has been responsible for the requirement to file an
opposition brief and has failed to do so even though he was provided three
extensions of time. (Id.) This factor favors Defendants.
B.

Prejudice to the adversary
In this case, the thirty-two Defendants are faced with excessive and possible

irremedial burdens or costs due to Plaintiff’s delay in resolving the issues in this
matter. (Id. at 11.) Thus, this factor favors defendants.
C.

History of dilatoriness
The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file a brief in opposition to

Defendants’ motion by April 11, 2016. (Doc. 29) After being granted three
extensions of time, the Magistrate Judge set the final deadline for Plaintiff’s
response as October 7, 2016. (Doc. 38.) No responsive brief or other supporting
documents were filed. The Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that this factor favors
Defendants is correct. (Doc. 39, pp. 11-12.)

3

D.

Willfulness or bad faith
Plaintiff had six months to file his response to Defendants’ motion. (Id. at

13.) During this time, Plaintiff filed three motions for extensions of time. (Id.) His
failure to file a response cannot be attributed to mere negligence. The Magistrate
Judge appropriately found that Plaintiff’s failure to file a response to Defendants’
motion amounts to willfulness. Once again, this factor weighs in favor of
Defendants.
E.

Effectiveness of alternate sanctions
The Magistrate Judge opines that by proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis Plaintiff would not be able to pay monetary damages as a sanction. (Id. at
13-14.) The only other recourse would be to grant another extension of time, which
this court believes would not be effective in light of the lack of response to
previous extensions. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
F.

Meritoriousness of claim
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly examined this issue. (See id. at 14-29.) She

comprehensively discussed the law applicable to Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff
failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (Id. at 14-21.)
She found that over the period of time covered in the complaint, a total of fifty-five
administrative complaints were filed, twelve of which were exhausted. (Id. at 18.)
Of those twelve, only five were potentially pertinent to this lawsuit setting forth
claims of inadequate medical care/deliberate indifference. (Id.) These claims
4

covered treatment for sarcoidosis and mental health issues (bipolar disorder). (Id.
at 19.)
The Magistrate Judge examined the medical records showing the treatment
provided by Defendants (Id. at 21-27) and opined that the undisputed facts, as
provided in Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts submitted with this motion,
did not establish a deliberate indifference claim to Plaintiff’s medical needs.
III.

Conclusion
All of the Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal and support the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment be granted on the merits.
An appropriate order will issue.

s/Sylvia Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: January 18, 2017

5