IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ERIC HOUSTON, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-13-3063

:

WARDEN JEFF THOMAS, ET AL., : (Judge Brann)

:

Defendants :

:

MEMORANDUM

January 15, 2016

Background

Eric Houston, an inmate presently confined at the United States Penitentiary,

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (USP-Lewisburg) filed this pro se civil rights action. This

Court previously issued a Memorandum and Order directing the Clerk of Court to

consolidate two subsequent actions filed by the Plaintiff, Houston v. Cordoza, et al.,

Civil No. 4:CV-14-722 and Houston v. Department of Justice, et al., Civil No. 4:CV14-1361 into this matter. See Doc. 13. 

In addition, Houston was directed to file and serve an amended complaint on an

attached form complaint which did not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length and

was in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e). The Memorandum and

Case 4:13-cv-03063-MWB-JVW Document 20 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 5
Order also forewarned Houston that failure to timely submit a proper amended

complaint which sufficiently set forth his allegations of mail interference, racially

motivated retaliatory mistreatment, and inadequate conditions of confinement or

otherwise respond would result in dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute.

Discussion

Plaintiff has filed what appears to be a proposed amended complaint. See Doc.

16. It is initially noted that Houston has again submitted a rambling and at times

illegible narrative. 

The proposed amended complaint, at least in part, appears to be seeking relief

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). See id. at p. 1. However, the only

proper defendant in an FTCA action is the United States of America, which is not

listed as being a defendant in Houston’s proposed amended complaint. The amended

complaint also contains no indication that Plaintiff filed and exhausted an

administrative tort claim.

Second, Houston’s amended complaint raises vague claims of racial and

religious retaliation as well as mail interference. However, the amended complaint

lists no dates and fails to describe specific events or actions. There are no allegations

of personal involvement by any named Defendant or any prison official described by

the Plaintiff. Simply put, the factual basis for the Plaintiff’s claims of constitutional

2

Case 4:13-cv-03063-MWB-JVW Document 20 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 5
misconduct cannot be deciphered from even a most liberal construction of the

amended complaint. The factually unsupported assertions are likewise insufficient to

set forth a discernible FTCA claim.

If a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order, the court may

dismiss the action, with prejudice. See Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.,

747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d

Cir. 1991) (failure of a plaintiff to comply with a court’s specific direction to comply

with a local rule which required the filing of an opposing brief, warranted the

treatment of a motion to dismiss as being unopposed and subject to dismissal without

a merits analysis). In a similar case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit recognized that a district court “has the authority to dismiss a suit sua sponte

for failure to prosecute by virtue of its inherent powers and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b)” when a litigant fails to comply with a court order directing him to

file an amended complaint. See Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 Fed.

Appx. 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007).

The Third Circuit in Poulis set forth six (6) factors which must be considered in

determining whether to dismiss an action with prejudice for failure to prosecute: (1)

extent of the party’s personal involvement; (2) prejudice to the opposing party by the

dilatoriness; (3) whether a history of dilatoriness existed; (4) whether the dilatoriness

3

Case 4:13-cv-03063-MWB-JVW Document 20 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 5
was willful and in bad faith; (5) possible effectiveness of alternative sanctions; and (6)

the merit of the claim or defense. See Adams v. Trustees, NJ Brewery Trust Fund, 29

F.3d 863 (3d Cir. 1994). 

In the matter at hand, adequate grounds have been established for the extreme

sanction of dismissal.1

 Even under the most generous treatment given to Plaintiff’s

original and amended complaints, those submissions simply fail to provide fair notice

as to the nature of Plaintiff’s claims as required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Houston was

granted opportunity to submit an amended complaint and was directed that his

amended complaint must contain some factual specificity, i.e. describe the conduct

which violated his rights, the time and the place of that conduct, and the identity of the

responsible officials. However, as has been the case in other actions filed by Houston,

he disregarded this Court’s directive and again filed a vague, illegible at times

narrative which sets no facts which could support a claim of constitutional misconduct

nor support an action under the FTCA. As a result, a finding of dilatoriness and

willful conduct is warranted. Other sanctions are simply not a viable alternative

because this matter simply cannot proceed without the filing of an adequate amended

1 Although Azubuko, 243 Fed. Appx. at 729, recognizes a “balancing under

Poulis is unnecessary” in cases such as the present matter where a litigant’s conduct

makes adjudication of the case impossible, other Third Circuit decisions indicate that

the Poulis analysis should be undertaken. See Hernandez v. Palakovich, 293 Fed.

Appx. 890, 894 (3d Cir. 2008) (Poulis factors must be considered before dismissing a

case as a sanction for failure to follow a court order).

4

Case 4:13-cv-03063-MWB-JVW Document 20 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 5
complaint. 

Based upon the present circumstances, dismissal of Houston’s action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute is warranted under the standards announced in

Azubuko and Poulis. An appropriate Order will enter.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

5

Case 4:13-cv-03063-MWB-JVW Document 20 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 5