The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRANDON GROSSINGER, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-CV-2039
:
GOOGLE LLC, et al., :
Defendants. :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2026, upon consideration of Plaintiff Brandon
Grossinger’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 7, 19), Complaint (ECF No. 9),
and Motions seeking emergency relief (ECF Nos. 2, 6, 8,14, 15, 19, and 21), 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 IN PART WITH PREJUDICE AND IN PART
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum as follows:
a. All ADA Title III claims against Google LLC and IBM Corporation are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. The ADA Title II claim and First Amendment access-to-courts claim
against Steven D. Watson are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
c. All state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate the County of Bucks,
Pennsylvania; Google LLC; and IBM Corporation as Defendants.
5. All Motions seeking emergency relief (ECF Nos. 2, 6, 8,14, 15, 19, and 21) are
DENIED.
6. Grossinger may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of
this Order limited to those claims dismissed without prejudice. He may not seek to reassert
claims that have already been dismissed with prejudice or reallege claims against a party that has
already been terminated. 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 basis for Grossinger’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, Grossinger 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.
7. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Grossinger 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. Grossinger may use this form to file his amended
complaint if he chooses to do so.
8. If Grossinger 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 an appealable 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, 241
(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”).
9. If Grossinger fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that
Grossinger intends to stand on his Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.1
See Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff’s intent to stand on his complaint may
be inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a
defective complaint).
BY THE COURT:
S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE
WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.
1 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 her
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
when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as would be the
case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her 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)).