Boggs v. Bennett et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:1.Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), Mr. Boggs case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with a court Order.2.The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.3.Any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 9/6/12. (jam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRY LEE BOGGS,
PATRICIA BENNETT, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-12-1657
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On August 21, 2012, Harry Lee Boggs, a pretrial detainee housed at the York
County Prison (YCP), in York, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming inadequate care by Prime Care Medical and its
medical staff for a knee injury. (Doc. 1, Compl.) On August 24, 2012, the Court
screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and concluded that, in
its current form, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Accordingly, we dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Mr.
Boggs twenty-one days to file an amended complaint. (Id.)
On September 5, 2012, the copy of the Court’s screening order, sent to Mr.
Boggs at his last known address — the YCP, was returned as undeliverable noting
that he had been released. See Doc. 9. The Court has independently checked the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections computerized Inmate Locator
(http://www.cor.state.pa.us/inmatelocatorweb/) and Vinelink
(https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink) in effort to locate Mr. Boggs, but to no avail.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff
fails to prosecute.” The United States Supreme Court has held that “[t]he authority
of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been
considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statue but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly
and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631,
82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). “Such a dismissal is deemed to be an
adjudication on the merits, barring any further action between the parties.” Iseley v.
Bitner, 216 F. App’x 252, 255 (3d Cir. 2007). Ordinarily when deciding, sua sponte,
to dismiss an action as a sanction, a District Court is required to consider and
balance six factors enumerated in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747
F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). However, when a litigant’s conduct makes
adjudicating the case impossible, an analysis of the Poulis factors is unnecessary.
See Iseley, 216 F. App’x at 255 (citing Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424, 1429-30 (3d
Cir.1990) and Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454-55 (3d Cir.1994)); see also
Williams v. Kort, 223 F. App’x 95, 103 (3d Cir. 2007).
On August 21, 2012, the Court sent Mr. Boggs a copy of our Standing
Practice Order which advises pro se litigants of their obligation to notify the Court of
any change of address. See Doc. 5 at p. 4. Mr. Boggs was warned that if he failed
to notify the Court of his change of address, he will be deemed to have abandoned
his action. As a result of Mr. Boggs’ failure to notify the Court of his present
location, we are unable to communicate with him. As such, it would be a waste of
judicial resources to allow this action to continue.
DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), Mr.
Boggs’ case is dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute and to comply with a
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this
Any appeal from this Order would not be
taken in good faith.
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge
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?