HARRISON v. SCI FOREST MEDICAL DEPARTMENT et al
Filing
7
OPINION 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
JAMES CURTIS HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCI FOREST MEDICAL DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 16-224 Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
OPINION
United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
I.
Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiff James Curtis Harrison, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Forest in Marienville, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action on
September 12, 2016. On October 6, 2016, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to
provide USM-285 form service instructions by October 25, 2016, so that Defendants can be
properly served with the complaint in this matter [ECF No. 6]. This Order specified that
Plaintiff's failure to provide the required service form within such time may result in the
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide the
required service instructions to the United States Marshal to allow this case to proceed.
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
1
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 recommends the dismissal of
this case. For the last several months, Plaintiff has taken none of the necessary steps to prosecute
this case against Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff has failed to comply with an Order of this
Court. Alternative sanctions, such as monetary penalties, are deemed inappropriate. Thus, this
case will be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: November 29, 2016
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?