2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 10-16-2008 

# Ja cquel yn N ' Jai v . H ome r F loyd P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2366

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ja c quelyn N '

Jai v . H ome r Flo yd " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 356. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/3561 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 2366

___________ JA C Q U E L Y N N ’JA I,

A ppel l ant vs. M R. HOMER C. F L OYD; S T E P HE N A. GL AS S M AN; RA QUE L OT E RO DE Y IE N G S T ; R O B E R T F L IP P IN G ; M IC H A E L H A R D IM A N ; M A N U E L B . Z U N IG A , J r.; WI L KI NS BU RG S CH OOL DI S T RI CT ; P A HUMAN RE L AT I ONS CO M M I S S I ON, P i t t s b u r g h , P A; HUMAN RE L AT I ONS CO M M I S S I ON, Ha rr i s b u r g , P A; E QUAL O P P O R T U N IT Y C O M M IS S IO N , P ittsbu rgh ; PIT T S B U R G H B O A R D O F P U B L IC E DUC AT I ON; S UE GOODWI N

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 1506) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N or a B arryFi s cher

_____________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember30, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober16, 2008)

______________ OP I NI ON

______________2

P E R C U R I A M.

J acque l yn N ’ J ai , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the A pr i l 4, 2008 or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng her c o m p l a i n tw i th p r e

j u d i c e f o rf a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e . S e e F e d . R u l e o f C i v . P r o . 4 1 ( b ) . We w i l l sum m ari l yvacate the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order and rem and for further proceedings.

I n a s er i es of or der s ent er ed on M ar ch 3 and M ar ch 5, 2008, the D i s tr i ct C o u rtg ran ted in p art an d d en ied in p art th e d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s to d ism iss. In p arti cu lar, th e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e m a jo rityo f J’N a i’s c laim s w ith p re ju d ice . B u t, concl udi ng thatJ ’ N ai ’ s compl ai nt“l ack[ ed] cl ar i ty ” and “ s uffi ci entdet ai l , ” the D i s tr i ct C o u rt in p a rt d isp o se d o f th e m o tio n s to d ism iss w ith o u t p re ju d ice , g ra n tin g J’N a i lea v e to a m e n d h e rc o m p l a i n to n o rb e f o r e A p r i l 3 , 2 0 0 8 . S e e P h i l l i p s v . C o u n ty o f A l l e g h e n y, 515 F. 3d 224 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( di s cus s i ng Fed. R . C i v. P. 8’ s pl eadi ng s t andar ds i n l i ghtof B el l A t l ant i c C orp. v. T w om bl y , – U . S. –, 127 S. C t . 1955 ( 2007) ) . J ’ N ai fai l ed t o fi l e an amended compl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e on A p ri l 4 , 2 0 0 3 .

W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derforabus e of di s cr et i on. See Em er s on v. T hi el C ol l ege, 296 F. 3d 184, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . “W hi l e w e def ert o the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s di s cr et i on, di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce i s onl yappr opr i at e i n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s a n d d o u b t s s h o u l d b e r e s o l v e d i n f a v o ro f r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n o n th e m e r i t s . ” I d . We hav e em ph asi zed that“dis m i ssal i s a dras t i c sanct i on and shou l d b e res erved fo r tho se3

cas es w her e ther e i s a cl earr ecor d of del ayorcontum aci ous conductbythe pl ai nt i ff. ” D o n n ell yv . Jo h n s-M an v il le S ales C o rp., 6 7 7 F . 2 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ).

B efor e ent er i ng a puni t i ve di s m i s s al , the D i s tr i ctC our ti s r equi r ed t o m ake e x p licit f in d in g s re g a rd in g th e f

a c to rs e n u m e ra ted in P o u lis v . S tate F a rm F ire & C a su a lty C o. , 747 F. 2d 863, 869 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . See Em cas co I ns . C o. v. Sam br i ck, 834 F. 2d 71, 74 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. $8, 221, 877. 16 i n U . S. C urr ency , 330 F. 3d 1 4 1 , 1 6 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ W e h a v e o p i n e d th a t[ th e P o u l i s f a c t o r s ] m u s tb e w e i g h e d b y a D i s tr i ctC our ti n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe har s h s anct i on of di s m i s s al i s j us t i fi ed. ”) . T he P o u lis f a c to rs th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m u st c o n sid e r a re : ( 1) the ext entof the party ’ s per s onal r es pons i bi l i ty ; ( 2) the pr ej udi ce t o the adve r s arycaus ed bythe fa i l ur e t o m eet s chedul i ng or der s . . . ; ( 3) a hi s t oryof di l at or i nes s ; ( 4) w hetherthe conduc tof the party. . . w as w i l l ful ori n bad f a ith ; (5 ) th e e f

f e c tiv e n e ss o f

sa n c tio n s o th e r th a n d ism iss a l, w hi ch ent ai l s an ana l y s i s of al t ernat i ve s anct i ons ; and ( 6) the me r i t o r i o u s n e s s o f

th e c l a i m. P o u lis , 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 8 6 8 .

T h is C o u rt’s f

u n c tio n is to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly bal ance d the Poul i s fac t or s and w hetherthe r ecor d s uppor t s i t s fi ndi ngs . See Li ver a v. Fi r s tN at . St at e B ank of N ew J er s ey , 879 F. 2d 1186, 1194 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( ci t i ng H i cks v. F ee n ey , 8 5 0 F . 2 d 1 5 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 )); see also E m ca sco , 8 3 4 F . 2 d at 74 (no ti n g that “[ i] n o r d e rth a twe ma yp r o p e r l ye x e r c i s e o u rf u n c t i o n o f

r e v i e wi n g f

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n , we hav e [] r equ i red the d i stri ctcou rtt o m ake ex pli ci tfi nd i ng s conce rni ng the fa ct ors i tm ustO n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our tm ayw i s h t o cons i derJ ’ N ai ’ s not i ce of appea l and her 1 “R es pons e . . . R egar di ng Fr i vol ous nes s , ” fi l ed i n thi s C our ton J une 20, 2008, i n w hi ch sh e a lleg e s th a t sh e a ttem p ted to su b m it a tim e lym o tio n f o r a n e n lar g e m e n t o f

tim e in w h ich to f

ile h e r a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. W e e x p re ss n o o p in io n o n th e m e rit o f th is a lleg a tio n o r th e e v id e n c e su b m itt e d in su p p o rt o f it. 4 c o n sid e r in re n d e rin g ju d g m e n t b y. . . d ism iss a l”) . H e re , h o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t co n d u c t an yP o u lis a n a ly sis . W e th u s c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in di s m i s s i ng N ’ J ai ’ s compl ai ntw i thoutm aki ng the r equi s i t e fi ndi ngs . L i ver a, 879 F. 2d at 1 1 9 3 . Gi v e n th e r e c o r d p r e s e n t e d , we wi l l f o r e g o th e o p p o r tu n i tyt o c o n d u c to u ro wn P o u lis te s t a s it w o u ld re q u ir e f a c tu a l f in d in g s n o t w ith in th e p a ra m e te rs o f o u r r e v ie w . S e e id . a t 1 1 9 4 .

B yf a ili n g to c o n d u c t a P o u lis b a lan c in g tes t, th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d iscreti o n ; th ere fo re, a rem an d to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r co n side rati o n o f th e P o u li s fa ctors is ne ce ssary . S ee id. at1 1 8 8 . A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l sum m aril yv ac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or derent er ed A pr i l 4, 2008 and w i l l r emand t he ca s e t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforfurther proceed i ng s. 1