#### Ronald MISTURAK, Jr., Appellant, v. McCREA, c/o; Fareed, c/o; Eisenhuth, c/o; Doris M. Frick, Ms.; Andrew B. Roberts, M.D.; James Janecka; Bush, Assistant Warden, and He or She is the Wackenhut Corrections Corp.; George W. Hill Correctional Facility, that Privately Runs the Institution; the President of it All; Perry, c/o.

No. 03-2228.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 5, 2004.

Decided Jan. 6, 2004.

*583Ronald Mistúrale, Jr., pro se, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

Robert M. Diorio, Kathleen E. Mahoney, Diorio & Serení, Media, PA, for Appellees.

Before SLOVITER, NYGAARD and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal stems from the dismissal of Ronald Misturak’s civil rights suit. Mistu-rak’s case was dismissed as a sanction for his failure to comply with the District Court’s scheduling order by not appearing at the pretrial conference and by not submitting a pretrial memorandum. At the pretrial conference, the defendants made an oral motion to dismiss as a sanction pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

We review for abuse of discretion a District Court’s dismissal of an action for failure to comply with its orders. *See Emerson v. Thiel College,*296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir.2002). Although we defer to the District Court’s discretion, dismissal is appropriate only in “limited circumstances and doubts should be resolved in favor of reaching a decision on the merits.” *Id.*This Court’s approach to sanctions emphasizes that “dismissal is a drastic sanction and should be reserved for those cases where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” *Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.,*677 F.2d 339, 342 (3d Cir.1982).

Before dismissing an action the District Court is required to make explicit findings regarding the factors enumerated in *Poul-is v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,*747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984). *See Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick,*834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987). The *Poulis*factors the District Court must consider are: “(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders ...; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party ... 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.” *Poulis,*747 F.2d at 868. This Court’s function is to determine whether the District Court properly balanced the *Poulis*factors and whether the record supports its findings. *Livera v. First Nat. State Bank of New Jersey,*879 F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir.1989)(citing *Hicks v. Feeney,*850 F.2d 152 (3d Cir.1988)).

In dismissing the complaint, the District Court did not conduct any *Poulis*analysis. We conclude that the District Court erred in dismissing Misturak’s complaint without making the requisite findings. *Livera,*879 F.2d at 1193. Given the record presented,1 we will not conduct our own *Poulis*test as it would require factual findings not within the parameters of our review. *See id.*at 1194.

*584By failing to conduct a *Poulis*balancing test, the District Court abused its discretion thereby necessitating a remand to the District Court for consideration of the *Poulis*factors. *See id.*at 1188. Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order entered April 14, 2003 and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

1

. Neither party has presented this Court with its position concerning the application of the *Poulis*factors.