2005 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 12-6-2005 

# C orron v . K e nt Ge n H o sp 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 . 05-2161

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " C orr on v . Ke nt Ge n H osp " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 156. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/156D PS-343 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 . 05- 2161

______________________________________ P AM E L A E RI KA C OR RO N, A ppel l ant

v. KE NT GE NE RA L HOS P I T AL

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

F o r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 00180) C hi ef J udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

A ugus t18, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed D ece m ber6, 2005)

____________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Pam el a C or r on, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the M ar ch 22, 2005 or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e di s m i s s i ng herci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt w i t h pr ej udi ce f

orfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e ort o compl yw i t h i t s or der s pur s uantt o Feder al R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 1 (b ). W e re v ie w s u c h a n o rd e r f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n .2

E m 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 t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on, di s m i s s al w i t h 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 and doubt s s houl d be r es ol ved i n favorof r eac hi ng a dec i s i on on t he m er i t s . ” I d. W e have emphasi zed that“di s m i s s al i s a dr as t i c s anct i on and s houl d be r es erved fort hos e ca s es w her e ther e i s a cl earr ecor d of del ayorcontum aci ous conductby the p lai n ti 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 e f o re d ism iss in g a n a c tio n , the D istric t C o u rt is re q u ire d to m a k e 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 te d in P o u lis v . S ta te F a rm F ir e & C a s u 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 141, 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[ t h 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 t r 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) t he ext entof the part y ’ s per s onal r es pons i bi l i t y ; ( 2) the pr ej udi ce t o t he ad v ersa ryca u sed b ythe f ail u re to m ee t sch ed u li n g o rde rs . . . ; ( 3 ) a h ist o ry o f d ilato rin e ss ; (4 ) w h e th e r th e c o n d u c t o f th e p a rty. . . w a s w ill f

u l o r in bad fa i t h; ( 5) the ef

fec t i venes s of s anct i ons ot herthan di s m i s s al , 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 mer i t or i ous nes s of t h e c l a i m. P o u lis , 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 8 6 8 . T hi s C our t ’ s funct i on i s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ybal ance d th e P o u lis f

a c to rs a n d w h e th e r th e re c o rd su p p o rts its f in d in g s. L iv e ra v . F irst N a t. S tate 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. Feeney , 850F. 2d 152 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ) ; s ee a l s o E m cas co, 834 F. 2d at73- 74 ( not i ng that“[i ] n or dert hat

w e maypr oper l yexer ci s e ourfunct i on of r evi ew i ng forabus e of di s cr et i on, w e have [] requi 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 ust 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 C or r on’ s compl ai ntw i t houtm aki ng the r equi s i t e fi ndi ngs . L i ver a, 879 F. 2d at 1193. M or eover , gi ven the r ecor d pr es ent ed, w e w i l l for ego the oppor tuni t yt o conduct ourow n Poul i s t es tas i tw oul d r equi r e fa ctual fi ndi ngs notw i t hi n t he par amet er s of our re 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 M ar ch 22, 2005 and r emand t he ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t her proceed i ng s.