Opinion
Case No. 1:18-cv-00319 (Erie)
05-11-2020
DOMINQUE LASHAUNE CASTILE Plaintiff v. PRIME MEDICAL INC., et al. Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ECF NO. 51
ECF NO. 54 I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss based upon Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action (ECF No. 51, ECF No. 54) be GRANTED, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. II. Report
A. Introduction and Procedural History
Plaintiff Dominque Lashaune Castile (Castile) initiated this action with the filing of a Complaint, pro se, on December 28, 2019. ECF No. 5. He alleged that the Defendants—PrimeCare Medical, Inc., Crawford County Corrections , Kathy Doe, Dr. Susen Rossino, Rebecca Doe, Dawn Doe, and Christine Schreffler—violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution through their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See ECF No. 5, p. 8. On March 1, 2019, Castile filed an Amended Complaint in which he asserted the same Eighth Amendment claims. ECF No. 13.
The unnamed defendants were later identified as Kathryn Skuce, Rebecca Harvey, and Dawn Salsberry. See ECF No. 49.
Dr. Rossino and Crawford County Correctional Facility (CCCF) moved to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 27, ECF No. 30. PrimeCare, Skuce, Harvey, Salsberry, and Schreffler (collectively, PrimeCare Defendants), also moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and, alternatively, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. ECF No. 33. On October 17, 2019, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court (1) grant Dr. Rossino's motion and dismiss the claims against her without prejudice, (2) grant CCCF's motion and dismiss the claims against it with prejudice, and (3) treat the PrimeCare Defendants' motion solely as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), grant the motion and dismiss the claims against these Defendants without prejudice. ECF No. 46. After reviewing Castile's objections (ECF No. 47), the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted Castile until January 15, 2020 to file a second amended complaint against Dr. Rossino and the PrimeCare Defendants. See ECF No. 49.
Castile failed to file a second amended complaint within the time permitted by the Court. On January 23, 2020, Dr. Rossino moved to dismiss the action with prejudice based upon Castile's failure to prosecute (ECF No. 51), and the PrimeCare Defendants followed suit with their own motion on February 5, 2020. ECF No. 54. The Court ordered Castile to respond to these motions by March 6, 2020, but he failed to do so. A show cause ordered was entered on April 17, 2020, again directing Castile to respond to the motions by May 1, 2020. ECF No. 62. Again, he did not comply. The pending motions are therefore unopposed and ready for disposition. III. Discussion and Analysis
On January 22, 2020, Castile did file a document entitled "Objection." ECF No. 52. This filing raised additional challenges to the Court's order adopting the earlier Report and Recommendation. On February 24, 2020, Castile filed further objections to the Court's order adopting the Report and Recommendation but did not file an amended complaint. ECF No. 57. On March 12, 2020, Castile filed what appear to be medical records, but no amended complaint. See ECF No. 59. Because none of these filings constituted an amended complaint, it is recommended that the Court disregard them as noncompliant with its previous order permitting amendment. In any event, the Court reviewed these objections and denied them on April 3, 2020. ECF No. 60.
A. Application of the Poulis Factors
In Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit set out a six-factor balancing test to guide a court's analysis whether to dismiss a claim as a sanction:
(1) extent of the party's personal responsibility;In weighing these factors, any doubt should be resolved in favor of reaching a decision on the merits. Scarborough v. Eubanks, 747 F.2d 871, 878 (3d Cir. 1984). That said, although a court must balance the six Poulis factors, it need not find that all factors are met before it dismisses an action with prejudice. Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 980 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1992) (court applies some or all of the six-part test in reviewing sanction orders that deprive a party of the right to proceed with or defend against a claim); Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992) (it is not necessary that all the factors point toward a default before that sanction will be upheld). Furthermore, a district court has the power to dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with an order of the court. See, e.g., Shipman v. Delaware, 381 Fed. Appx 162, 164 (3d Cir. 2010) (a pro se plaintiff's failure to respond to an opposing party's motion to dismiss provides a basis for dismissing an action for failure to prosecute); Jackson v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 350 Fed. Appx 621, 625 (3d Cir. 2009) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case for failure to prosecute based on, inter alia, plaintiffs failure to respond to three pending motions to dismiss); Allen v. Am. Federation of Government Employees, 317 Fed. Appx 180, 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing complaint without explicitly weighing the Poulis factors when plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as ordered by the court); Gagliardi v. Courter, 144 Fed. Appx 267 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing complaint where plaintiff failed to respond to motion to dismiss for more than three months and plaintiff did not appear to have a meritorious cause of action).
(2) prejudice to the adversary;
(3) a history of dilatoriness;
(4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith;
(5) effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal; and
(6) meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
When applied to the present case, the Poulis factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal of Castile's action.
1. The Extent of the Party's Personal Responsibility
The Court has issued multiple Orders directing Castile to file his amended complaint and to respond to the pending motions. There is no indication that he did not receive these Orders. The Court must therefore conclude that Castile's failure to respond is solely his responsibility. See, e.g., Filbert v. Westmoreland Cty. Prison, 2016 WL 1337267 *2 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2016). His failure to file his amended complaint makes it impossible for the Court to reach the merits of any claim he potentially may have against Dr. Rossino or the PrimeCare Defendants. This factor supports dismissal of this action with prejudice.
2. Prejudice to the Adversary
Consideration of this factor also supports dismissal. Castile's failure to file his amended complaint and respond to the two pending motions leaves the Defendants in litigation limbo and prevents the Court from addressing the merits of any potential amended claim Castile might have asserted. Castile's noncompliance has also forced the Defendants to incur unnecessary expense and disruption.
3. A History of Dilatoriness
Until Castile's failure to file his amended complaint as authorized by the Court, he substantially complied with deadlines and generally prosecuted his action with reasonable diligence. His protracted failure to file his amended complaint and to respond to the Defendants' pending motions, however, evidences that he no longer intends to proceed with this case. This factor favors dismissal.
4. Whether the Party's Conduct Was Willful or In Bad Faith
There is no indication record that Castile's repeated defiance of Court Orders was the result of excusable neglect. Thus, the Court must conclude that his failures were willful. See, e.g., Filbert, 2016 WL 1337267, *3. This factor supports dismissal.
5. Alternative Sanctions
Ordinarily, a court must consider the availability of alternative sanctions less severe than dismissal. Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869. However, where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, as is the case here, monetary sanctions, including attorney's fees, "would not be an effective alternative." Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184,191 (3d Cir. 2002). Indeed, no other litigation sanction short of dismissal is available to Court in the present posture of this case. This factor also supports dismissal.
6. Meritoriousness of the Claim or Defense
The deficiencies that required the dismissal of his first amended complaint raise serious questions regarding Castile ability to assert any meritorious claim in this case. Nevertheless, Castile's failure to file an amended complaint or a response to the Defendants' motions makes it impossible to assess whether he may have any meritorious claims. Therefore, the Court will consider this factor as neither weighing for nor against dismissal.
B. Balancing of Poulis Factors
In balancing the Poulis factors, no single factor is dispositive, Ware v. Rodale Press, 322 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2003), and not all the factors need be satisfied to dismiss an action. Mindek, 964 F.2d at 1373. There also is no "magic formula" to determine how the Poulis factors should be balanced, and the determination is within the court's discretion. Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 263 (3d Cir. 2008). Here, however, the factors clearly weigh in favor of dismissal. Moreover, Castile's failure to comply with the Court's Order directing that he file a response to the pending motions also supports dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Dr. Rossino's and the PrimeCare Defendants' respective Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 51, ECF No. 54) be GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court should be directed to close this case. V. Notice to the Parties
The parties are referred to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72(C)(2) for the appropriate procedure if any party desires to file objections to these findings and recommendations. Objections must be in writing and must be filed within fourteen (14) days of this date. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. Angle v. Murin, 2013 WL 5888272, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2013).
Submitted this 11th day of May, 2020.
/s/_________
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
United States Magistrate Judge