COTE v. JONES CONSULTANT
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, under Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and for his failure to comply with the February 3rd Order. The dismissal is with prejudice. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 3/27/17. (dcd) Staff note: On 3/28/17, a copy of this Order will be sent, via First-Class U.S. Mail, to Plaintiff, at the address: Dennis Cote, 624 East 2nd Ave., Apt. 1, Tarentum, PA 15084.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Action No. 16-1528
Judge Cathy Bissoon
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
When Plaintiff’s former counsel was permitted to withdraw, Plaintiff was afforded a
generous period of time to either secure new counsel, or to file with the Court a notice of his
intent to proceed pro se. See Order dated Feb. 3, 2017 (Doc. 16). Plaintiff’s deadline of
March 23, 2017 has come and gone, and he has done neither. The Order specifically advised
that, should Plaintiff fail to timely comply, his case may be summarily dismissed without further
notice. See id. at 2.
Based on the current record, the Court has no reason to believe that Plaintiff remains
interested in prosecuting this lawsuit. In any event, the case will be dismissed under Poulis v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984), for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and
for his failure to comply with the February 3rd Order. Specifically, the Poulis factors regarding
Plaintiff’s personal responsibility, his failure to demonstrate excusable neglect, and the lack of
effective, alternative sanctions favor dismissal. Id. at 868.
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 27, 2017
United States District Judge
cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
624 East 2nd Ave., Apt. 1
Tarentum, PA 15084
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?