# JONES v. GIDDINGS

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · February 5, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10816669

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 5, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10816669

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIE DIVISION
WILLIAM JONES, ) Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-24-SPB-CBB
)
)
Plaintiff, ) United States District Judge
) Susan Paradise Baxter
vs. )
)
C. GIDDINGS, PATRICIA ) United States Magistrate Judge
) Christopher B. Brown
THOMPSON, SZELEWSKI, NURSE
)
GIBBS, DR. BAIRD, PA STROUP, )
CHCA EDWARDS, LT. BEDNARO, )
LT. FROEHLICH, DOUGHERTY, )
)
RUFF, STG. TEIXEIRA, STG. HURL, )
LUCKOCK, SWATWORTH, HAAS, )
PRODVENCE, JOHN DOE, )
Defendants,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Christopher B. Brown, United States Magistrate Judge
I. Recommendation
Plaintiff William Jones (“Jones”) initiated this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleges Defendants Ryan Szelewski, Gloria Gibbs,
Frank Ruf, Shane Dougherty, Chad Swartzworth, Andrew Teixeira, Sarah Hurl,
Thomas Luckock, Andrew Haas, Michael Edwards, Lee Provencher, Carla
Messenger (Giddings), Patricia Thompson, Richard Bednaro, and Christopher
Froehlich, (“Corrections Defendants”), Dr. Baird, PA Stroup, Prodvence, and John
Doe(s) (collectively, “Defendants”), violated his rights under the First, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 8. The Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Pending before the Court is the Corrections’ Defendants Partial Motion to

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF No. 15.
Jones was ordered to file his Opposition by October 4, 2024 but failed to do so. ECF
No. 18. Jones also did not respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause by the
November 15, 2024 deadline, ECF No. 21,1 and has not participated in this case in
over five months. ECF No. 19.
For the reasons below, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss

this action for failure to prosecute, deny the pending Rule (12)(b) Partial Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 15) as moot, and dismiss Jones’ claims with prejudice.
II. Report
Jones was in the custody of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) at SCI-
Albion when he initiated this civil action against Defendants on January 24, 2024.
ECF No. 8. He is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. ECF Nos.

7-8.
Jones has now seemingly abandoned his claims. Jones missed multiple
deadlines and opportunities to respond to the Corrections Defendants’ Partial
Motion to Dismiss, missed the Court’s Deadline to Show Cause, and has failed to
update his address with the Court.

1 On October 17, 2024, this case was transferred to the undersigned pursuant to
Administrative Order 2024-14.
On September 4, 2024, Chief Judge Richard A. Lanzillo, then assigned to the
case, set the Briefing Schedule on the Partial Motion to Dismiss and gave Jones
until October 4, 2024 – thirty days – to respond to the Corrections Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 18. Instead, on September 13, 2024, Jones filed a
Motion for the Production of Documents. ECF No. 19. Chief Judge Lanzillo denied
the Motion for the Production of Documents as premature on October 1, 2024, but
simultaneously reminded Jones of his upcoming October 4, 2024 deadline to file an
Opposition brief. ECF No. 20.
Jones missed the October 4, 2024 deadline without an explanation or request

for extension. On October 16, 2024, the Court then directed Plaintiff to show cause
by November 14, 2024 – nearly six weeks from his original deadline – for his failure
to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 21. Jones missed that
deadline as well, with no further communication to the Court.
Jones was released from DOC custody sometime before November 20, 2024
and failed to provide the Court with a change of address. See 11/20/2024 Staff Note
(indicating Jones was paroled). The Court’s mail was then returned multiple times.

See 11/20/2024 Staff Notes.
Jones has not taken any action in this case since he filed his Motion for the
Production of Documents on September 13, 2024. ECF No. 19.
After over four months of inaction, Jones’ failure to provide the Court and
counsel with an adequate address reflects his lack of prosecution of this case. A
federal court has the discretion to dismiss a proceeding based on a party’s failure to
prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962); Qadr v. Overmyer,
642 F. App’x 100, 102 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) states in pertinent part:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order
states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as
an adjudication on the merits.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
A district court has the power to dismiss a case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) for failure to prosecute even if the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Sixth
Circuit has stated that “while pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when
dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training,
there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural
requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Thus, a pro se litigant’s failure to prosecute
is not the same as “inartful pleading or [a] lack of legal training.” Id. at 110.
The Third Circuit laid out factors that a court must consider when
determining whether a case should be dismissed for the plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 747 F.2d 863, 868
(3d Cir. 1984). These factors are: (1) the extent of the party’s personal
responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet
scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether
the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the
effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of
alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Id.
Based on these factors, it is respectfully recommended that this case be

dismissed for Jones’ failure to prosecute. The first five factors all weigh heavily in
favor of dismissal. Because Jones is proceeding pro se, “the responsibility of moving
the case forward lies with him.” Cravener v. McClister, No. 2:23-CV-00355, 2023
WL 7168929, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No.
CV 23-355, 2023 WL 7166475 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2023). And yet, Jones has not
participated in this case in over four months.

He has been on parole since at least November 2024 but has not updated his
address. Neither the Court nor Defense Counsel can reach him. The Court cannot
rule on the pending Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss if it cannot reach the Plaintiff, nor
can Defense Counsel engage in discovery. The case simply cannot move forward
with a non-responsive Plaintiff. Additionally, under factor five, there are no
alternative sanctions which would adequately punish Jones for his failure to
prosecute his case; imposing a monetary sanction against Jones who is proceeding

in forma pauperis would not be effective as he appears impecunious.
Only factor 6 is neutral. The Corrections Defendants’ pending Rule 12(b)
Partial Motion to Dismiss has not been fully briefed, so it is unclear at this stage
whether Jones’ claims would survive dismissal. It is also not apparent whether his
claims would survive summary judgment even if they should survive the motion to
dismiss stage. But not all the Poulis factors “need be met for a district court to find
dismissal is warranted.” Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1988).
On balance, five factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal and only one

factor is neutral. Given this, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss
this action for failure to prosecute, deny the pending Rule (12)(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss as moot, and dismiss Jones’ claims with prejudice.
III. Conclusion

Based on the above, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss
this action for failure to prosecute, deny the pending Rule (12)(b)(6) Partial Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) as moot, and dismiss Jones’ claims with prejudice pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Any party is permitted to file written specific Objections to this Report and
Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Jones, because he is
a non-electronically registered party, must file written objections, if any, to this

Report and Recommendation by February 24, 2025. Defendants, because they are
electronically registered parties, must file objections, if any, by February 19,
2025. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the
date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this
timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187,
193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir.
1983)). See also EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017)
(describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are
filed as limited to review for plain error).

DATED this 5th day of February, 2025.
BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge

CC: United States District Judge
Susan Paradise Baxter

WILLIAM JONES
MD9017
SCI ALBION
10745 ROUTE 18
ALBION, PA 16475-0001

All counsel of record, via ECF

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10816669. Public record. Not legal advice.