2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-16-2008

Jacquelyn N'Jai v. Homer Floyd

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-2366

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Jacquelyn N'Jai v. Homer Floyd" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 356.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/356
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2366

___________

JACQUELYN N’JAI,

Appellant

vs.

MR. HOMER C. FLOYD; STEPHEN A. GLASSMAN; RAQUEL OTERODE

YIENGST; ROBERT FLIPPING; MICHAEL HARDIMAN; MANUEL B. ZUNIGA, Jr.;

WILKINSBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT; PA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION,

Pittsburgh, PA; HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Harrisburg, PA; EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Pittsburgh; PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC

EDUCATION; SUE GOODWIN 

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-1506)

District Judge: Honorable Nora Barry Fischer

_____________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 30, 2008

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 16, 2008)

______________

OPINION

______________
2

PER CURIAM.

Jacquelyn N’Jai, proceeding pro se, appeals the April 4, 2008 order of the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing her

complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. Rule of Civ. Pro. 41(b). We

will summarily vacate the District Court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

In a series of orders entered on March 3 and March 5, 2008, the District

Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In particular,

the District Court dismissed the majority of J’Nai’s claims with prejudice. But,

concluding that J’Nai’s complaint “lack[ed] clarity” and “sufficient detail,” the District

Court in part disposed of the motions to dismiss without prejudice, granting J’Nai leave to

amend her complaint on or before April 3, 2008. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny,

515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8’s pleading standards in light of

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, – U.S. –, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). J’Nai failed to file an

amended complaint. The District Court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute on

April 4, 2003. 

We review the District Court’s order for abuse of discretion. See Emerson

v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002). “While we defer to the District

Court’s discretion, dismissal with prejudice is only appropriate in limited circumstances

and doubts should be resolved in favor of reaching a decision on the merits.” Id. We

have emphasized that “dismissal is a drastic sanction and should be reserved for those
3

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 entering a punitive dismissal, the District Court is required to make

explicit findings regarding the factors enumerated in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty

Co., 747 F.2d 863, 869 (3d Cir. 1984). See Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71,

74 (3d Cir. 1987); see also United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d

141, 161 (3d Cir. 2003) (“We have opined that [the Poulis factors] must be weighed by a

District Court in determining whether the harsh sanction of dismissal is justified.”). The

Poulis factors that 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. See 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)); see also Emcasco, 834 F.2d at 74 (noting that “[i]n

order that we may properly exercise our function of reviewing for abuse of discretion, we

have [] required the district court to make explicit findings concerning the factors it must
 On remand, the District Court may wish to consider J’Nai’s notice of appeal and her 1

“Response . . . Regarding Frivolousness,” filed in this Court on June 20, 2008, in which

she alleges that she attempted to submit a timely motion for an enlargement of time in

which to file her amended complaint. We express no opinion on the merit of this

allegation or the evidence submitted in support of it.

4

consider in rendering judgment by . . . dismissal”). Here, however, the District Court did

not conduct any Poulis analysis. We thus conclude that the District Court erred in

dismissing N’Jai’s complaint without making the requisite findings. Livera, 879 F.2d at

1193. Given the record presented, we will forego the opportunity to conduct our own

Poulis test as it would require factual findings not within the parameters of our review. 

See id. at 1194. 

By failing to conduct a Poulis balancing test, the District Court abused its

discretion; therefore, a remand to the District Court for consideration of the Poulis factors

is necessary. See id. at 1188. Accordingly, we will summarily vacate the District Court’s

order entered April 4, 2008 and will remand the case to the District Court for further

proceedings.1