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 Thir d C ir c uit 8-12-2008 

# T uck e r v . M onro e P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4385

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 b y 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 mor e 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 " T ucke r v . M onr oe " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 667. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/667NOT 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. 07- 4385

___________ M ATT HEW TUCKER, A ppel l ant

v. J A N E T M O N R O E , C hi ef Execut i ve O ffi cerG r ey s t one Park P s y c h ia tr ic H o s p ita l; R A Y G R A Y , U n it C h ie f , C e n tr a l A v e n u e C o m p le x , W in g -B , G re y s to n e P a rk P s y c h ia tr ic H o s p ita l; J A N E D O E , C le rk , C e n tra l A v e n u e C o m p lex -W in g B , G re y sto n e P a rk P sy c h iatric H o sp ital; J O H N D O E , M ai l R oom E m pl oy ee, G r ey s t one Park Psy chi atr i c H os pi t al

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 04219 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay13, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , SM I T H and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________2

P E R C UR I AM

Pr ocee di ng pr o s e, M atthew T uckerappea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al o f h is c o m p lain t as a sa n c tio n f o r f a ili n g to c o m p lyw ith a n o rd e r to su b m it a le g ib le c o mp l a i n t . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. T uckeri s i n ps y chi atr i c conf i nementatG r ey s t one Park Psy chi atr i c H os pi t al i n G r ey s t one Park, N ew J er s ey . H e fi l ed a ha nd- w r i t t en, pr o s e compl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 ag ai nstfou r hospi t al off i ci al s al l eging t hat theyviol at ed h i s Fir st A m endmentr i ght s bym i s handl i ng and del ay i ng the del i veryof hi s l egal m ai l , ther eby obs truct i ng hi s acc es s t o t he court s . Fi ndi ng T ucker ’ s compl ai nti l l egi bl e, the D i s tr i ct C our tor der ed hi m t o fi l e a l egi bl e compl ai ntw i thi n for ty - fi ve day s orfac e the di s m i s s al o f th e a c tio n . T u c k e r tim e lyc o m p lied w ith th e o rd e r a n d f iled a n A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, w hi ch w as agai n handw r i t t en. C oncl udi ng thathi s compl ai ntw as s t i l l i l l egi bl e, thatt he courtacc or di ngl ycoul d notadj udi cat e the s ui t , and thatno l es s ers anct i on w oul d r emedy th e situ a tio n , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d T u c k e r’s c o m p lain t as a sa n c tio n f o r f a ili n g to compl yw i th i t s pr evi ous or der . T uckerfi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, expl ai ni ng t hat h e h ad n o ac ce ss to a typ ew ri ter or co m p u ter, an d that h e b eli ev ed h is sub m issi o n s w ere le g ib le . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n . T u c k e r t im e ly ap p e a le d .

W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and r evi ew the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . M ind ek v . R igatti , 9 6 4 F . 2 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ).T he Poul i s fac t or s ar e: ( 1) the ext entof the party ’ s per s onal r es pons i bi l i ty ; ( 2) the 1 p re ju d ice to th e a d v e rsa ryc a u se d b yth e f a ilu re to m e e t sc h e d u lin g o rd e rs a n d re sp o n d to di s covery ; ( 3) a hi s t oryof di l at or i nes s ; ( 4) w hetherthe conduc tof the partyorthe a tto rn e yw a s w ilfu l o r in b a d 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 h ich e n tails a n a n a ly sis o f a ltern a tiv e sa n c tio n s; a n d (6 ) th e m e rito rio u sn e ss o f th e c laim o r d e f e n s e . P o u lis , 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 8 6 8 . 3 B ef o re d ism issi n g a c ase as a san cti o n fo r fa il ing to co m p lyw ith a c o u rt o rd e r u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ), d istric t co u rts m u st m a k e e x p licit f in d in g s u n d e r th e six fa ctors set fo rth in P o u li s v . S tat e F arm F ir e & C asu altyC o . , 7 4 7 F . 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 8 (3d C ir .

1 1984) ; 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 141, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “[W ] e have al w ay s r equi r ed cons i der at i on and bal anci ng of al l s i x of the f a c to rs [ b yth e d istric t co u rt], an d h a v e re c o m m e n d e d th e re so lu tio n o f a n yd o u b ts in favorof adj udi cat i on on the mer i t s . ”) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . W hen us ed t o s anct i on l i t i gant s , di s m i s s al s w i th pr ej udi ce a r e “dr as t i c” a nd “extr eme” and “s houl d be r es erved” for cases w here there has been “‘fl agrantbad fai th’ on the partof the plai nti ffs, ” P ou l i s, 74 7 F. 2d a t86 7- 68 , qu ot i ng N a t ’ l H oc ke yLea gu e v. M e tr o. H oc ke yCl ub , I nc . , 42 7 U. S. 639, 643 ( 1976) . M or eover , w e have cons i s t ent l yr ecomm ended thatal l doubt s be r es ol ved i n favorof a di s pos i t i on on the mer i t s , s ee $8, 221, 877. 16 i n U . S. C urr ency , 330 F. 3d at162. I n t hi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tpuni t i vel ydi s m i s s ed Tucker ’ s compl ai nt w i thouteven r efe r enci ng Poul i s fac t or s . O urr evi ew of thes e fa ct or s r evea l s thatal though T u ck er b ea rs pe rson al resp o n sibil ityin this ca se a s a p ro se li ti g an t, the d ef en d an ts w ereW e h a v e n e v e r h e ld P o u lis’s s ix th f a c to r to b e d e ter m in a tiv e . T o d o so w o u ld 2 confus e R ul e 12( b) ( 6) w i th R ul e 41( b) , w hi ch w e w i l l notdo. 4 n o t p re ju d ice d a s th e a c tio n w a s d ism iss e d b e f o re th e yw e re se rv e d . A d d iti o n a lly , the re is no hi s t oryof di l at or i nes s i n t hi s cas e, gi ven thatT uckerpr om pt l yfi l ed r es pons es t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dert o s ubm i ta more “l egi bl e” c om pl ai nt . T ucker ’ s act i ons do not s ugges tthathe w i l ful l ydi s r egar ded the or der , northathi s s ubm i s s i ons w er e i n bad fa i th, gi ven thathe fi l ed an A m ended Com pl ai nt , expl ai ned t o the D i s tr i ctC our tthathe has no a c c e ss to a typ e w riter o r c o m p u ter . In d e e d , the w o rd s in T u c k e r’s h a n d w ritten C o m p lain t, A m ended Com pl ai nt , m ot i ons , and s ubm i s s i ons on appea l ar e pl ai nl ydi s cernabl e and l egibl e. M oreove r, the D i stri ctC ou rtcou l d h ave u sed al t ernat i ve sanc t i on s, such as a d is m is s a l w ith o u t p re

ju d ic e . F in a lly , as w e e x p lain b e lo w , the c o m p lain t lac k s m e rit u n d e r th e las t P o u lis f a c to r. E v e n so , fo u r f

a c to rs w e ig h a g a in st d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t f o r f a ilu re to 2 p ro s e c u te , a n d th e b a la n c e w e ig h s s tr o n g ly in T u c k e r’ s f a v o r. E v e n if w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in di s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntas a s anct i on, w e w oul d aff i r m , beca us e Tuckerfai l s t o s t at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. See St ackhous e v. M azurki ew i cz, 951 F. 2d 29, 29 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( fi ndi ng thatw her e a c om pl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m , thi s C our tm ay a f f irm o n th e m e rits e v e n if th e c o m p lain t w a s e rro n e o u slyd ism iss e d f o r f a ilu re to pr os ecut e) . T he onl ycogni zabl e cl ai m thatw e r ead i n T ucker ’ s compl ai nti s thatthepr i s on deni ed hi m acc es s t o t he court s byw i thhol di ng hi s m ai l , w hi ch cont ai ned the fi nal

o rde r i n a se p ara te civil ri g h ts acti o n that h e f il ed ag ains t a N ew Jerse yS u p erior C o u rt J udge and a courtcl erk for“di s m i s s i ng” an a ct i on thathe had be en pur s ui ng i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . B eca us e of the amountof del ayi n r ece i vi ng not i ce of a fi nal or deri n that ca se, he arg u es th at he co u ld n o lon g er p u rsue ti m elyap p ell ate rem ed ies i n that ca se. In order t o st at e a cl ai m un der the F i rs tA m end m ent that he w as denied access t o the cou rt s, T u c k e r m u st p ro v e th a t h e su f f e re d a n a c tu a l in

ju ry , an d th e c laim m u st b e a lleg e d w ith s uffi ci entcl ar i tyt o s how thati thas s om e ar guabl e mer i t . C hr i s t opherv. H arbury , 536 U .S . 4 0 3 , 4 1 5 (2 0 0 2 ); se e a lso , O liv e r v . F a u v e r, 1 1 8 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); L e w is v. C as ey , 518 U . S. 343, 351 ( 1996) . O urr evi ew of the r ecor d s how s thatal though he demonstr at es actual i nj uryi n bei ng unabl e t o pur s ue hi s appel l at e r emedi es i n the afor ement i oned ci vi l r i ght s act i on, T ucker ’ s cl ai m l acks ar guabl e mer i ton i t s fac e: T he st at e j ud ge an d clerk w ho he sued i n thatact i on w ere act i ng i n a judi ci al capac i tyand so w e re im m u n e f

ro m s u it. S e e S tu m p v . S p a rk m a n , 4 3 5 U .S . 3 4 9 , 3 5 6 -5 7 (1 9 7 8 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l a f f i r m.

5