The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FREDERICK T. RAY, Il, :
Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-1697
v. : (JUDGE MANNION)
PAMELA MCDONALD, et al., :
Defendants :
MEMORANDUM
Il. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Frederick T. Ray, an inmate formerly confined at the Phoenix
State Correctional Institution, Collegeville (“SCl-Phoenix”), Pennsylvania,
originally filed the above caption civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983, in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. 1). By Notice
of Removal dated September 18, 2020, the Defendants removed the above
captioned action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. Id. The named Defendants are Mary Jo Mather, Executive
Director of the Pennsylvania Certification Board, and the following SCI-
Dallas employees (“DOC Defendants”): Superintendent Kevin Ransom,
Pamela McDonald, Louise Cicerchia, Mr. Kilheeney, Kelly McAndrews,
Captain Brozowski, Deputy Miller, Deputy Cronauer, Michael Goyne, Major
Jason Bohinski, Captain Lukashenski and John/Jane Does. Id. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages for alleged First and Fourteenth
Amendment violations. Id.
By Order dated March 30, 2022, Defendants Goyne, Lukashenski,
Miller, Ransom and Mather were dismissed from the above captioned action
and all of Plaintiffs claims, with the exception of his First Amendment
Retaliation claim were dismissed. (Doc. 37). Remaining Defendants were
directed to file an answer or other responsive pleading within twenty-one
days of the Court’s Order. !d.
On April 20, 2022, remaining Defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. (Doc. 39).
On December 12, 2022, this Court issued a Scheduling Order,
directing that discovery be concluded by January 9, 2023, and that
dispositive motions be filed on or before February 9, 2023. (Doc. 40). On
February 14, 2023, this Court's December 12, 2022 Scheduling Order was
returned to this Court with the notations “Return to Sender,” “Refused” and
“Unable to Forward.” (Doc. 46).
Oin February 9, 2023, remaining Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of prosecution, indicating that their attempts to reach Plaintiff for
discovery and deposition were returned to them as undeliverable. (Doc. 41).
_2-
By Order dated February 13, 2023, this Court directed Plaintiff to show
cause on, or before, March 1, 2023, as to why the above captioned action
should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for Plaintiff's failure
to prosecute. (Doc. 45). To date, no response to this Court’s February 13,
2023 Order has been filed. A review of the inmate locator,
http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov, indicates that Plaintiff was released on April
22, 2022.
Thus, for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the above captioned action for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and
to comply with a Court Order.
Il. DiscUSSION
Local Rule of Court 83.18 requires pro se plaintiffs to keep the court
informed of their current address. If your address changes while your lawsuit
is being litigated, you must immediately inform the court of the change in
writing. id. Plaintiff has failed to provide this Court with his current address in
violation of the requirements of Local Rule 83.18 and the Court is unable to
communicate with Plaintiff at his address of record.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute.” The United States Supreme Court has held that
_3-
“[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has
generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or
statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962). “Such a dismissal is
deemed to be an adjudication on the merits, barring any further action
between the parties.” Iseley v. Bitner, 216 F. App’x 252, 255 (3d Cir. 2007).
Ordinarily when deciding, sua sponte, to dismiss an action as a sanction, a
District Court is required to consider and balance six factors enumerated in
Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).
However, when a litigant’s conduct makes adjudicating the case impossible,
an analysis of the Poulis factors is unnecessary. See Iseley, 216 F. App’x at
255 (citing Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1990) and Spain
v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454-55 (3d Cir. 1994)); see also Williams v. Kort,
223 F. App’x 95, 103 (3d Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff's last communication with this Court was an April 1, 2022 letter
to Court requesting a copy of this Court’s March 30, 2022 Memorandum and
Order. (Doc. 38). A search of the computerized Inmate Locator revealed that
Mr. Ray is not in state custody. See http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov. Plaintiff's
_4-
failure to provide his current address has prevented this matter from
proceeding.
Based on these circumstances, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is no
longer interested in pursuing his pending claims. Accordingly, it would be a
waste of judicial resources to allow this action to continue. The Court's
inability to communicate with Plaintiff is solely the result of his own inaction
and renders ineffective any sanction short of dismissal. See Poulis, 747 F.2d
at 868-69.
lll. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to
dismiss the above captioned action with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to
prosecute and to comply with this Court’s Local Rule 83.18.
An appropriate order shall issue.
SA. _——>
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: March 2, 2023
20-1697-02
-5-