Opinion
Civil Action 23-4220
02-15-2024
ETHAN ANTHONY CHIN, Plaintiff, v. TONI WARFEL, et al. Defendants
ORDER
GENN E.K. PRATTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AND NOW, this 15th day of February 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff Ethan Anthony Chin's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 1), Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement (Doc. No. 4), pro se Complaint (Doc. No. 2), and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 3), it is ORDERED that:
1. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc, No. 1) is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
2. Ethan Anthony Chin shall pay the frill filing fee of $350 in installments, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), regardless of the outcome of this case, The Court directs the Warden of Lancaster County Prison or other appropriate official to assess an initial filing fee of 20% of the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to Mr. Chin's inmate account; or (b) the average monthly balance in Mr. Chin's inmate account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this case. The Warden or other appropriate official shall calculate, collect, and forward the initial payment assessed pursuant to this Order to the Court with a reference to the docket number for this case. In each succeeding month when the amount in Mr. Chin's inmate trust fund account exceeds $10.00, the Warden or other appropriate official shall forward payments to the Clerk of Court equaling 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Mr. Chin's inmate account until the fees are paid. Each payment shall refer to the docket number for this case.
3, The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Warden of Lancaster County Prison, 625 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602.
4. The Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DEEMED filed.
5. The Complaint is DISMISSED IN PART WITH PREJUDICE AND IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum, as follows:
a. Mr. Chin's claims alleging a violation of PREA and his claims for sexual abuse against Sergeant Michael Fischer are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. Mr. Chin's official capacity claims and his claims for retaliation against Sergeant Michael Fischer are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6. Mr. Chin may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to attempt to cure the defects identified by the Court in the claims dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Chin may not reassert a claim already dismissed with prejudice, Any amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption of the amended complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the amended complaint and shall state the basis for Mr. Chin's claims against each defendant. The amended complaint shall be a complete document that does not rely on the initial Complaint or other papers filed in this case to state a claim. When drafting his amended complaint, Mi'. Chin should be mindful of the Court's reasons for dismissing the claims in his initial Complaint as explained in the Court's Memorandum, Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until so ORDERED by the Court.
7. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Mr. Chin a blank copy of the Court's form complaint for a prisoner filing a civil rights action bearing the above civil action number. Mr. Chin may use this form to file his amended complaint if he chooses to do so. 8. If Mr. Chin does not wish to amend his Complaint and instead intends to stand on his Complaint as originally pled, he may file a notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir, 2019) (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.l (3d Cir. 1976)) (“If the plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would be appropriate.”); In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1996) (“district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with prejudice the otherwise viable claims .,. following plaintiffs' decision not to replead those claims” when the district court “expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . ., would result in the dismissal of those claims”).
9. If Mr. Chin fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that Mr. Chin intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case, See Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiffs intent to stand on his complaint may be inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective complaint).
The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire c& Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiffs intention to stand on his complaint. See Weber, 939 F,3d at 241 & n.l 1 (treating the “stand on the complaint” doctrine as distinct from dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order, which require assessment of Poulis factors); see also Elansari v. Altria, 799 Fed.Appx. 107, 108 n.l (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend his complaint, leaving the case without an operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 Fed.Appx. 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiffs conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiffs behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case impossible, a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 292 F.R.D, 171,175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“[T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes adjudication of the matter impossible.”).
10. Mr. Chin's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.