BEDDINI v. FORTY FORT BOROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT et al
| JANET LINDA BEDDINI |
| FORTY FORT BOROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT, JOSEPH S. TOCYDLOWSKI, JR., Melissa C. Diana, MELISSA FREDERICKS and Brad Evans |
| 3:2016cv00983 |
| May 25, 2016 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Outside State |
| Susan E. Schwab |
| Robert D. Mariani |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
21
ORDER 1. The Report & Recommendation, (Doc. 19), is ADOPTED, but only as modified by this Order. While the Magistrate Judge correctly turned to the Poufis factors, the Court does not completely agree with the Magistrates Judge's conclusions and, specifically, the need to dismiss this case with prejudice. Here, under the second Poulis factor, the Court does not believe the Defendants in this case have suffered much prejudice. Only one Defendant has entered an appearance in this case and ther e is no indication that he will be prejudiced if this Court dismisses the action and Plaintiff refiles it again within the statute of limitations. Under the third Poulis factor, the Court agrees that Plaintiff does not have a history of dilatoriness because after the initial filings and the in forma pauperis application, Plaintiff has had no contact with the Court and none of the Court's orders have reached the Plaintiff. Thus, the history of dilatoriness amounts to one incident: failing t o keep a current address on 'file with the Court. While Plaintiff does have an affirmative duty to do so under the Local Rules, one failure cannot be considered a history of dilatoriness. Under the fourth Poulis factor, the Court disagrees that there is any indication that her failure to prosecute is anything but inadvertent due to inexperience with civil litigation. While Plaintiff bears responsibility for failing to update her address with the Court, the Court sees no indication that her failure was purposeful or made in bad faith. Thus, while the Court ultimately agrees that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and the case should be dismissed, it does not see an initial failure to keep a current updated address on file with the Court as significant enough to merit foreclosing this pro se litigant's right to pursue her litigation in the future. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Defendant Toczydlowski's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 14), is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 1/6/17 (jfg)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
