Opinion
Civil No. 3:20-CV-1563
11-13-2020
JAMES CHARLES MEININGER, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS VOICE NEWSPAPER, et al., Defendants
(Judge Mariani)
( ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Statement of Facts and of the Case
The plaintiff, James Meininger, who alleges that he is a resident of Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit that named two Luzerne County newspapers and a local police department in Luzerne County as defendants. (Doc. 1). The gist of the complaint was that the newspapers and the police published inaccurate statements regarding the precise circumstances of the plaintiff's arrest on some otherwise unspecified state sexual assault charges in May of 2020, alleging that Meininger was "nabbed" in South Korea, when the plaintiff insists that he voluntarily returned from that country to face these charges. Thus, the gravamen of Meininger's complaint seemed to be a claim of defamation brought by this Pennsylvania resident against these Pennsylvania defendants.
On September 25, 2020, we conditionally granted Meininger leave to proceed in forma pauperis, directed that the lodged pro se complaint be deemed filed, but finding that the complaint as drafted failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in federal court, we recommended that the court dismiss this complaint without prejudice to the plaintiff attempting to file an amended complaint in this court or attempting to file this action in the appropriate Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. 7).
The district court adopted this Report and Recommendation, and on October 20, 2020, dismissed this case without prejudice to the plaintiff filing an amended complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 9). This deadline has passed without any action by Meininger to amend his complaint. Accordingly, given this failure to comply with the court's October 20, 2020 order, we now recommend that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
II. Discussion
While our initial screening analysis called for dismissal of this action, 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 in multiple and profound ways, 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, the plaintiff was given this opportunity to further amend his complaint but has now forfeited this opportunity through his inaction. In this situation, where a wholly deficient complaint is dismissed without prejudice but the pro se plaintiff refuses to timely amend the complaint, it is well within the court's discretion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, 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 F. App'x 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 F. App'x at 438. Therefore, consistent with the prior practice of this court, it is recommended that the complaint now be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous 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 Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
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 13th day of November 2020.
S/Martin C . Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge