IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DASHAWN C. COLEMAN, )

Plaintiff ) C.A. No. 04-340 Erie

)

v. ) District Judge McLaughlin

) Magistrate Judge Baxter

MARILYN S. BROOKS, et al., )

Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the instant civil rights action be dismissed for

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

II REPORT

Plaintiff Dashawn Coleman, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Albion,

Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action on November 26, 2004, along with a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. By Order dated August 26, 2004, Plaintiff’s motion for in forma

pauperis status was granted and he was ordered to pay the initial filing fee of $ 1.67.

By Order of this Court dated November 29, 2005, Plaintiff was directed to file a legible

amended complaint, and to either to pay the filing fee or return the signed authorization to

withdraw funds from Plaintiff’s inmate account, on or before December 15, 2005, or suffer

dismissal of this case. [Document # 10]. To date, Plaintiff has done nothing to comply with this

Order.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has set out a six-factor

balancing test to guide a court in determining whether dismissal of a case is appropriate. Poulis

v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). The court must consider: 

1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; 2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by

Case 1:04-cv-00340-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 3
the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; 3) a history of dilatoriness; 4)

whether the conduct of the party or 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. at 868. Not all of the six factors need to weigh in

favor of dismissal before dismissal is warranted. Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152 (3d Cir. 1988).

Applying the Poulis factors to the present matter, this Court recommends the dismissal

of this matter. Since the filing of this matter, Plaintiff has taken none of the necessary first steps

to prosecute this case. Further, Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order of this Court. 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and therefore bears all of the responsibility for any failure in the

prosecution of his claims. Alternative sanctions, such as monetary penalties, are inappropriate

with indigent parties. Although Plaintiff’s allegations may state a claim upon which relief could

be ultimately be granted, the merits of the claim are impossible to determine at this early stage

of the proceedings.

III CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed due

to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. No extensions of time will be granted. Failure

to timely file objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated: January 13, 2006

Case 1:04-cv-00340-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 3
cc: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:04-cv-00340-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 3