WILLIAMS v. PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
5
OPINION & ORDER that this case will be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 11/29/16. (lrw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GORDON C. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff
v.
PA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 16-192 Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
OPINION AND ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
I.
Relevant Procedural History
On July 28, 2016, the Clerk of Courts received a pro se civil rights complaint from
Plaintiff Gordon C. Williams, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Forest in
Marienville, Pennsylvania; however, the complaint was submitted without the required filing fee
or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP motion"). As a result, this Court entered a Show
Cause Order requiring Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee of $ 400.00 or file an IFP motion with
an accompanying institutional account statement, by September 5, 2016. [ECF No. 2]. On
September 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed an IFP motion, but failed to provide an accompanying inmate
account statement [ECF No. 3]. As a result, this Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to file
the required account statement on or before October 10, 2016, or suffer dismissal of this case for
failure to prosecute [ECF No. 4]. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file the required account
statement.
II.
Discussion
The United States Court of Appeals for 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 and 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, the Court finds that dismissal of this
case is warranted. Since the filing of this matter, Plaintiff has taken none of the necessary first
steps to prosecute this case. Further, Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order of this Court.
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 Plaintiff's allegations may state a claim upon which relief could
ultimately be granted, the merits of the claim are impossible to determine at this early stage of the
proceedings. Thus, this case will be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: November 29, 2016
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?