Filed: Oct. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MARYELLEN NOREIKA , District Judge . 1. On September 13, 2019, the Court entered an Order ordering, inter alia, Plaintiff Reggie Folks ("Folks") to show cause, on or before October 11, 2019, why he should not be dismissed as a plaintiff for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. ( See D.I. 86 6). Folks did not respond to the show cause order. 2. P
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MARYELLEN NOREIKA , District Judge . 1. On September 13, 2019, the Court entered an Order ordering, inter alia, Plaintiff Reggie Folks ("Folks") to show cause, on or before October 11, 2019, why he should not be dismissed as a plaintiff for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. ( See D.I. 86 6). Folks did not respond to the show cause order. 2. Pu..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MARYELLEN NOREIKA, District Judge.
1. On September 13, 2019, the Court entered an Order ordering, inter alia, Plaintiff Reggie Folks ("Folks") to show cause, on or before October 11, 2019, why he should not be dismissed as a plaintiff for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (See D.I. 86 ¶ 6). Folks did not respond to the show cause order.
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules] or any order of court . . . ." Although dismissal is an extreme sanction that should only be used in limited circumstances, dismissal is appropriate if a party fails to prosecute the action. Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1330 (3d Cir. 1995).
3. The following six factors determine whether dismissal is warranted: (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 was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of other sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); see also Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cty., 923 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2019). The Court must balance the factors and need not find that all of them weigh against Folks to dismiss him as a plaintiff. Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002).
4. Several factors warrant the sanction of dismissal including Folks' failure to: (1) take any action in this matter since June 28, 2018; (2) file responses to Defendants' motions to dismiss (D.I. 54, 57); (3) notify the Court of his transfer to the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center and of his new address; and (4) prosecute the case.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff Reggie Folks is DISMISSED as a Plaintiff without prejudice for his failure to prosecute this case.
