DEAN v. CITY OF ERIE POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 3 Complaint filed by FREDRICK DEAN. This case will be dismissed due to Plaintiffs failure to prosecute. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 7/8/2016. (dm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FREDRICK DEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ERIE POLICE DEPT, et al,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 15-97 Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
M.J. Susan Paradise Baxter
This civil rights action was filed in this Court on April 3, 2015. Plaintiff brought this
civil rights action for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the discovery requests of Defendant. Defendant filed
two motions to compel discovery and Plaintiff was directed to file a response to those motions.
By Order filed June 7, 2016, Plaintiff was directed to show cause for his failure to file a pretrial
narrative statement, as well as his failure to file a response to Defendant’s motions to compel
discovery. While Plaintiff filed a pretrial narrative statement, he failed to file a response to the
motions to compel.
By Order dated June 23, 2016, this Court directed Plaintiff to respond to the Defendant’s
discovery request by July 1, 2016. This Court further instructed that Defendant was to file a
Notice to Court as to the receipt of those discovery materials. As of today’s date, Defendant has
notified this Court that Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order compelling
discovery.
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily
consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including
the entry of a final judgment.
1
The Third Circuit has set out a six-factor balancing test to guide a court in determining
whether dismissal of a case is appropriate. Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d
863 (3d Cir. 1984). The court must consider: 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 attorney was willful
or in bad faith; 5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of
alternative sanctions; and 6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Id. at 868. Not all of
the six factors need to weigh in favor of dismissal before dismissal is warranted. Hicks v.
Feeney, 850 F.2d 152 (3d Cir. 1988).
Applying the Poulis factors to the present matter, this Court will dismiss this matter.
Plaintiff has ignored Defendant’s requests for discovery, Defendant’s motions to compel
discovery, and this Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s non-compliance in this regard seems willful as he
has been given several opportunities to respond or voice his objections to the discovery requests,
yet has failed to do so. Without Plaintiff’s participation in the discovery process, this case cannot
proceed. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and therefore bears all of the responsibility for any failure
in the prosecution of his claims. Alternative sanctions, such as monetary penalties, are
inappropriate with indigent parties. Although it is possible that Plaintiff’s allegations could state
a claim upon which relief could be ultimately be granted, the merits of the claim are impossible
to determine at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed due to
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
An appropriate Order follows.
2
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?