Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03699/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03699-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3699

___________

ANDRE JACOBS,

Appellant

v.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY LUZERNE COUNTY; JEFFREY A. BEARD; OFFICE OF

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; JAMES BARNACLE; ROBERT BITNER; 

KRISTEN P. REISINGER; SHARON M. BURKS; DORINA VARNER; BRIAN

COLEMAN; DAVID LINK; GARY ABRAMS; CAPT. LEGGETT; MIKE ZAKEN; 

U.M. HUGHES; DEP. GATES; GARY GALLUCCI; PSYCHOLOGIST LACKEY; 

DARLENE LINDERMAN; SGT. SCHOMPERT; LT. TIFT; LT. BERRIER; LT. 

VOJACEK; CAPT. TREMPUS; MARY ANN KUSHNER; RHONDA HOUSE; 

CHRISTOPHER MEYERS; KERRI CROSS; C/O SCOLES; C/O COLLINS; C/O 

ANKROM; C/O KELLER; C/O STROTMAN; C/O MILLER; KEVIN MISKELL; LT. 

PATTERSON; NICOLE KLEM; ROBIN LUCAS; GARY DAVIS; SUPT. MICHAEL 

KLOPOTOSKI; SGT. BUCK; DEP. VINCENT MOONEY; SUPT. WALSH; SGT. 

RANSOM; LT. BLEICH; LT. MOSIER; LT. MARTIN; DR. JESSE; NANCY FEDOR; 

COUNSELOR KELLER; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; THOMAS LESKOWSKY; 

DAVID POPEK; CAPT. ZAKARAUSKAS; BOHINSKI; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; MHM; MCKEOWN; NURSE 

PATTY; C/O KOVAC; C/O WALTERS; C/O WILK; C/O HARRISON; C/O ELMORE; 

C/O ROBOWLESKI; C/O PUDLOSKY; C/O MCCOY; C/O WILDS; C/O RUDASKI; 

KANDIS DASCANI, a/k/a Kandis Daslani; SUPT. DAVID VARANO; DEP. SUPT. 

MCMILLAN; LT. FAUST; CAPT. G. MILLER; LT. RUDON; SGT. YOUNG; PA 

RYAN DAVIS; KATHRYN MCCARTHY; LT. EVELAND, CAPT. LT.; CAPT. 

BAUMBACH; SGT. MARTINA; SGT. ERDLY; PSYCHIATRIST LASKI; LT. 

STETLER; PSYCHOLOGIST MS. STEVENS; CHARLENE SCHUSTER, Psychiatrist; 

C/O HOWAL; C/O DRUCIS; C/O EMERICH; C/O BELLES; C/O KNARR; C/O 

PIEPSZOWSKI; COURT; C/O GOODWIN; C/O LEONARD; C/O KAUFFMAN; 

SHIRLEY R. MOORE SMEAL; SUPT. LAWLER; CONNIE GREEN; KELLER; 

GARMAN B. CORBIN 

____________________________________

Case: 14-3699 Document: 003112380225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
2

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 10-cv-02622)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 5, 2016

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 12, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

André Jacobs appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed his suit as a sanction for failing to 

prosecute his civil rights complaint. We will vacate the District Court’s judgment and 

remand for further proceedings.

Jacobs filed a lengthy complaint in the District Court against numerous 

defendants. Many defendants filed motions to dismiss. Instead of responding to the 

motions, Jacobs filed a motion to amend his complaint. The District Court granted the 

motion, giving Jacobs instructions about how to cure the deficiencies of his complaint,

i.e., to allege personal involvement of the defendants, include factual specifics, and 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3699 Document: 003112380225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
3

include only related claims and parties.1 Dkt. #76. Jacobs filed an amended complaint, 

see Dkt. #83, that “was 218 pages in length, contained over 800 paragraphs, and named 

over 130 defendants . . . [with] incidents [that] occurred at multiple Pennsylvania state 

prisons between 2008 and 2010.” See Dist. Ct. Mem. Op., Dkt. #125 at 2. The District 

Court granted the defendants’ motions to strike the complaint as it was not compliant 

with the Court’s previous order, and granted Jacobs twenty days in which to file a proper 

amended complaint.2 Upon Jacobs’ request, the Court granted him an extension of time 

to file, but Jacobs then filed a notice stating that he was unable to file a complaint within 

that extended time.

Jacobs then asked the Court to divide his complaint into three separate complaints, 

and sent in a check for $710 to cover the costs. Dkt. #107. Jacobs next filed a motion to 

transfer, alleging that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because of the location of the 

prisons in his complaint. Dkt. #110. A few months later, he filed a proposed second 

amended complaint, see Dkt. #113, “consist[ing] of 59 pages and almost 800 

 

1 Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain, 

among other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” And under Rule 20, a plaintiff may only join defendants in one action 

if he asserts a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence and “any 

question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”

2 The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jacobs’ first amended 

complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the Federal Rules. See In re 

Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996).

Case: 14-3699 Document: 003112380225 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
4

paragraphs.” Dist. Ct. Mem. Op., Dkt. #125 at 6-7. The District Court declined to divide 

the complaint, noting that it was not the Court’s responsibility to do so, and declined to 

transfer the complaint, as some of the prisons mentioned in the complaint were within the 

Middle District, and the complaint was in any event deficient. The Court then dismissed 

the matter after considering the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 

Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1994).

 Jacobs filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 to review the District Court’s final decision dismissing Jacobs’ complaint as a 

sanction. We review such a decision for abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that 

“dismissal with prejudice is only appropriate in limited circumstances and doubts should 

be resolved in favor of reaching a decision on the merits.” Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 

F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002).

To determine if the District Court abused its discretion, “we will be guided by the 

manner in which [it] balanced the following factors . . . and whether the record supports 

its findings: (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the 

adversary . . . ; (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.” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868 (emphases omitted). We agree with the 

District Court that the first Poulis factor, which focuses on the extent of Jacobs’ personal 

Case: 14-3699 Document: 003112380225 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
5

responsibility, weighs against him, at least to some extent. See Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 

F.3d 252, 258-59 (3d Cir. 2008) (pro se litigant is “solely responsible for the progress of 

his case”). We note, however, that because he was moved from prison to prison without 

access to his legal materials, he may not have had full control over the ability to timely 

comply with the Court’s orders. The third factor (history of dilatoriness) also would have

been affected by his transfers, so Jacobs cannot be completely faulted for any delay. The 

second factor, which focuses on prejudice to the adversary, weighs against Jacobs

because the defendants were required to expend much time and expense to respond to the 

various iterations of his complaint. See Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 223 

(3d Cir. 2003). 

We find that the fourth factor is neutral. The record reflects that despite being 

given two opportunities and extra time, Jacobs did not comply with the District Court’s 

orders. On the other hand, Jacobs persuasively argues that in his amended complaint he 

was just trying to do what the Court ordered – provide more detail and specifically link 

the various defendants to the various allegations. He also argues that all of the incidents 

are related because they all relate to his claim that the various defendants retaliated 

against him for winning a large verdict in a previous civil rights action.3 As to the fifth 

factor, we generally have said that alternative sanctions are not available when the 

 

3 We do not necessarily find that all of the incidents in the complaint are properly brought 

in one complaint, but we consider Jacobs’ argument in connection with determining 

whether his amended complaint was filed in bad faith.

Case: 14-3699 Document: 003112380225 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
6

plaintiff is pro se, see Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 262-63, but Jacobs argued that he was not 

indigent at the time, and the District Court could have considered monetary sanctions.4

The District Court found that the sixth factor, the merits of the case, could not be 

used to prevent the imposition of sanctions, as due to Jacobs’ failure to file a compliant 

complaint, the merits of his complaint were “untested.” This reasoning is circular, and 

our examination of the various complaints reveals some serious allegations that would 

survive a motion to dismiss. See Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 82 (3d 

Cir. 2012) (“Poulis directs the District Court to examine the merits of the underlying 

claim . . . . [T]he District Court abused its discretion in concluding that [the sixth] factor 

weighed in favor of dismissal because it did not even address the merits of [the plaintiff's] 

claim.”). Although not all Poulis factors weigh in Jacobs’ favor, we are mindful that 

dismissal is an extreme sanction. See Poulis, 747 F.2d at 867-68. Under the 

circumstances of this case, we conclude that the District Court’s analysis and weighing of 

the Poulis factors was an abuse of discretion. We will thus vacate the District Court’s 

judgment and remand for further proceedings.

5

 

 

4 A motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed several months ago in this Court in 

conjunction with an unsuccessful motion for appointment of counsel indicated a 

relatively modest balance in Jacobs’ prison account. But the fact that he sent the District 

Court a check for $710 suggests that he could have paid a monetary sanction at the time 

the District Court dismissed his complaint.

5

Jacobs’ motion to file a supplemental reply brief is granted.

Case: 14-3699 Document: 003112380225 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
7

We direct the District Court to allow Jacobs one more opportunity to amend his 

complaint, and we encourage the Court to consider appointing counsel to assist Jacobs in 

doing so.

6

 

6

If the Court decides to pursue appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), it 

may wish to solicit an updated statement of account from Jacobs to determine if he 

financially qualifies for pro bono counsel. 

Case: 14-3699 Document: 003112380225 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/12/2016