1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FABIAN ROQUE )

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) C.A.No. 06-143 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

LISA PETERS, et al. ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

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, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at

Camphill, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action on June 29, 2006. 

By Order of this Court dated July 6, 2006, Plaintiff was instructed to either pay the filing

fee of $350 or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis before July 20, 2006. The

order warned that Plaintiff’s failure to comply could result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute. See Document # 2. To date, Plaintiff has not complied 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 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

Case 1:06-cv-00143-GLL-LPL Document 3 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 3
2

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 ignored an order by 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 it is possible that Plaintiff’s allegations could 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. 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: July 25, 2006

Case 1:06-cv-00143-GLL-LPL Document 3 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Case 1:06-cv-00143-GLL-LPL Document 3 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 3