“[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.” (citing cases)
How later courts described this case
- “[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.” (citing cases)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMEN BROWN, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-CV-0228
:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE :
DEPARTMENT, et al., :
Defendants. :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2023, upon consideration of Plaintiff Amen Brown’s
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and his pro se Complaint (ECF No. 2), it is
ORDERED that:
1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
2. The Complaint is DEEMED filed.
3. The Complaint is DISMISSED 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.
4. Mr. Brown may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Order. 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
specific factual basis for Brown’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, Brown 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.
5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Brown a blank copy of this Court’s
current standard form to be used by a self-represented litigant filing a civil action bearing the above-
captioned civil action number. Brown may use this form to file his amended complaint if he
chooses to do so.1
6. If Mr. Brown 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) (“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.”
(quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976))); In re Westinghouse Sec.
Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703–04 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding “that the 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”).
7. If Mr. Brown fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that
Brown intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.2 See
Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff’s intent to stand on his complaint may be
1 This form is available on the Court’s website at
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents2/forms/forms-pro-se.
2 The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863
(3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff’s intention to stand on his
complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (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 the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v. Altria, 799 F.
App’x 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis is not required
inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective
complaint).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.
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 F. App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff’s
conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiff's
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.” (citing cases)).