Opinion
CIVIL 1:22-CV-1401
03-19-2024
EVAN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JORDAN THOMAS, et al., Defendants
Rambo, Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Martin C. Carlson, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. Factual Background
This case comes before us for consideration of a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Jordan Thomas and Daniel Tingle. (Doc. 27). With respect to this motion the pertinent facts can be simply stated: Brown commenced this case by filing a complaint on September 8, 2022. (Doc. 1). Defendants Jordan Thomas and Daniel Tingle then filed a Motion to Dismiss this complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 10). This Motion was granted on September 5, 2023, and this complaint was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 21).
When this order dismissing Brown's complaint against these defendants was returned as undeliverable, we ordered Brown to provide an updated mailing address on November 13, 2023; Brown complied with this order on November 24, 2023. (Docs. 22-24). However, because it was unclear whether Brown had received the court's September 5 order dismissing his claims against Defendants Tingle and Thomas, we ordered the clerk to mail the Court's September 5, 2023, Order to Plaintiff at the new address and gave Brown until December 18, 2023, to file an Amended Complaint if he wished to litigate claims against these defendants at this time. (Doc. 25).
Brown has not filed any amended complaint against these defendants, and the deadline for filing such an amended complaint has now passed. Accordingly, on February 8, 2024, Tingle and Thomas renewed their motion to dismiss. (Doc. 27). Brown has not responded to this motion, and the time for responding has now passed. Therefore, this motion should be deemed ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be granted.
II. Discussion
While the initial analysis of Brown's complaint against Defendants Tingle and Thomas called for dismissal of this action against these defendants, the Court provided the plaintiff a final opportunity to further litigate this matter by endeavoring to promptly file a proper amended complaint. Having concluded that this pro se complaint was flawed, we followed this course recognizing that in civil rights cases pro se plaintiffs often should be afforded an opportunity to amend a complaint before the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, see Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007), unless it is clear that granting further leave to amend would be futile, or result in undue delay. Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).
Thus, in this case, Brown was given this opportunity to further amend his complaint but has now forfeited this opportunity through his inaction. In this situation, where a deficient complaint is dismissed and the pro se plaintiff refuses to timely amend the complaint, it is well within the court's discretion to dismiss the complaint given the plaintiff's refusal to comply with court directives. Indeed, the precise course was endorsed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 Fed.Appx. 436, 438 (3d Cir. 2007). In Pruden, the appellate court addressed how district judges should exercise discretion when a pro se plaintiff ignores instructions to amend a complaint. In terms that are equally applicable here the court observed that:
The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and allowed [the pro se plaintiff] twenty days in which to file an amended complaint. [The pro se plaintiff] failed to do so. Because [the pro se plaintiff] decided not to amend his complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed [the pro se plaintiff's] complaint with prejudice. See In re Westinghouse Securities Litigation, 90 F.3d 696, 704 (3d Cir.1996). The District Court expressly warned [the pro se plaintiff] that the failure to amend his complaint would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. “[I]t is difficult to conceive of
what other course the court could have followed.” Id. (quoting Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 455 (3d Cir.1994)).Pruden, 252 Fed.Appx. at 438.
Therefore, consistent with the prior practice of this court, it is recommended that the complaint now be dismissed at this time with respect to defendants Thomas and Tingle without further leave to amend. See, e.g., Wicks v. Barkley, 3:12-CV-02203, 2013 WL 5937066 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2013) (Mariani, J.); Davis v. Superintendent, SCI Huntingdon, 3:12-CV-01935, 2013 WL 6837796 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2013) (Mariani, J.).
III. Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with respect to Defendants Thomas and Tingle (Doc. 27) be GRANTED and the case CLOSED with respect to these two defendants at this time.
The district court's September 5, 2023, order provided for the dismissal of these defendants with leave for Brown to reassert the claims against Tingle and Thomas should his conviction ultimately be overturned or otherwise invalidated. Therefore, Brown would retain the right to reassert these claims in the future should he prevail in this criminal case at some future date.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 19th day of March 2024.