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 3-26-2008 

# W i lli ams v . F or te 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 . 07-1990

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
" W i ll i am s v . F or t e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1382. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1382NOT 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- 1990
A N TH O N Y W I LLI A M S, A ppel l ant

v. LT. FO RT E, ( SCI P) ; J O A N A . D ELI E, H e a l th Car e A dmi ni s tr a t or( SCI P) ; J O SEPH GE RA GI , M e d i c a l S t a f f ( S CI P ) ; DR . GI NC HR E AU, M e d i c a l Di r e c t o r( S CI P ) ; DI ANE M A N S O N , R . N . S u p erv isor (S C IP ); W IL L IA M S T IC K M A N , S u p erinten d en t ( S C IP ); J O E E C SE D Y , C / O I ( SC I P) ; D A V I D G O O D , D eputySuper i nt endentPR C M ember (S C IP ); C H A R L E S J. S IM S O N , C a p tain (S C IP ); T H O M A S M C C O N N E L L , C a p tain ( S CI P ) ; BI LL CARNUCHE, Co u n s e l o r( S CI P ) ; M I CHAEL Z AKEN, Un i tM a n a g e rP RC M ember( SC I P) ; D O N A L D W I L L I A M SO N , C oor di nat orD i agnos t i c C l as s i fi cat i on B ur eau of

I nm at e Servi ces PA D ept . of C orr ect i ons ; T H O M A S JA M E S, G r i evanc es and A ppeal s O ffi cer ; H . C L I FFO R D O ’ H A R A , O ffi ce of Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i tyD i r ect or atD ept . of C orr ect i ons 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 A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 00012) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er

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

M ar ch 21, 2008
B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 26, 2008)2 OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM A nthonyW i l l i ams appe al s , pr o s e, fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i 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 ism iss in g h is c a se f o r f a ilu re to prosecute. W e w i l l vacate and rem and for further proceedings. I . W i l l i ams al l eged thathe w as the vi ct i m of m i s conductw hi l e he w as i ncar cer at ed at St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on- Pi t t s bur gh ( “SC I P”)
. H e named fi ft een di ffe r ent defe ndant s . H i s compl ai ntcont ai ned al l egat i ons r egar di ng s uch mat t er s as hi s pl ace m ent i n a hous i ng uni tw i th i nm at es w ho w er e try i ng t o ki l l hi m , as s aul t s bya corr ect i onal offi cer , i nt er fer ence w i th hi s l egal m ai l , and fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de medi cal tr eatm ent . T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed in form a pau peri s st atus on the g round s that W i l l i am s had at l east thr ee pr evi ous cas es di s m i s s ed as fr i vol ous and thathe otherw i s e fa i l ed t o s at i s fythe im m in e n t-d a n g e r e x c e p tio n o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g ). It d ism iss e d th e c a se f o r f a ilu re to paythe fi l i ng fee , and W i l l i ams appe al ed on A pr i l 9, 2004. W e r ever s ed the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o n M a y2 7 , 2 0 0 5 . (W illia m s v . F o rt e , C .A . N o . 0 4 -2 0 7 1 .) W ill iam s w a s tra n sf

e rre d f ro m S C IP to S tate C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n -F a y e tte ( “SC I - Fay ett e”) befor e fi l i ng hi s s ucce s s ful appea l
. W hi l e the pr i orappea l w as pendi ng, h e w as th en tr an sfe rred to S tat e C o rrecti o n al Insti tuti o n -H u n ti n g ton (“S C I-H u n ti n g ton ”),3

w her e he a ppar ent l yr emai ned forthe r emai nderof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdocketcont i nues t o i dent i fyW i l l i ams as havi ng a SC I - Fay ett e mai l i ng addr es s , and the j udi ci al or der s ent er ed on r emand w er e ac cor di ngl yaddr es s ed and mai l ed to th e o ld a d d re s s . T he M agi s tr at e J udge or der ed W i l l i ams t o pr ovi de the D i s tr i ctC our tC l erk by N ovember14, 2005, w i th compl et ed U SM 285 form s , not i ces and w ai ver s of s um m ons ( “not i ces ”) , and copi es of the compl ai ntforeac h named defenda nt . B eca us e the D i s tr i ct C our tC l erk had notr ece i ved the r eques t ed document s , the M agi s tr at e J udge i s s ued an
or dert o s how caus e. A ft erW i l l i ams w as gr ant ed an e xt ens i on of t i m e t o r es pond, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the ca s e w i thoutpr ej udi ce. W i l l i ams then fi l ed a mot i on for
r econs i der at i on. O n Sept ember15, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our tvaca t ed the di s m i s s al and
or der ed W i l l i ams t o pr ovi de the nec es s arydocument s on orbefor e O ct ober15, 2006, or have hi s cas e di s m i s s ed aga i n. T he D i s tr i ctC our tC l erk r ece i ved the U SM 285 form s on O ct ober16, 2006. O n D ece m ber28, 2006, the M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatt he
cas e be di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. W i l l i ams then r eques t ed a 30- dayext ens i on of tim e in w h ich to sa tisf

yth e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o f S e p tem b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e M a g istra te Ju d g e g ran ted th e re q u ested ex tens ion o n Jan u ary2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , o rde ri n g W il li am s to f o rw ard the r emai ni ng document s t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tC l erk on orbefor e February26, 2007. T he M agi s tr at e J udge furthernot i fi ed hi m thatno m or e ext ens i ons w oul d be gr ant ed and that h is c a se w o u ld b e d ism iss e d if h e f a iled to c o m p ly . N e v e rth e les s, th e D istric t C o u rt d idH e a lso m o v e d f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , cla im in g th a t h e n e v e r re c e iv e d th e M a g istra te 1 Ju d g e ’s o rd e r g ra n tin g h is re q u e ste d e x ten sio n b e c a u se it h a d b e e n in c o rre c tlym a iled to h is o ld a d d re s s . T h e m o tio n w a s d e n ie d o n A p ri l 3 , 2 0 0 7 w ith o u t e x p la n a tio n . 4 notr ece i ve the document s fr om W i l l i ams. O n M ar ch 6, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d d ism iss e d th e c a se f o r f a ilu re to p ro s e c u te . W il li am s filed a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l. H e f il ed a f o rm al m o ti o n u n d er 1 § 1 9 1 5 (g ), a rg u in g th a t h e re m a in s in im m in e n t d a n g e r o f d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry. W e gr ant ed hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on O ct ober5, 2007. II . In a d o p tin g th e re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly
re c o g n ize d th a t it s d e c isio n to d ism iss f o r f a ilu re to p ro se c u te w a s g o v e rn e d b yth e P o u lis f a c to rs: ( 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 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 d isc o v e ry ; (3 ) a h isto ryo f d ilato rin e ss ; (3 ) w h e th e r th e c o n d u c t o f th e p a rty orthe att orneyw as w i l l ful ori n bad fa i th; ( 5) the ef fec t i venes s of s anct i ons otherthan 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 the cl ai m ordefe ns e. P o u lis v . S tate F a rm F ire & C a s. C o ., 7 4 7 F .2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (e m p h a sis
o m itt e d ). W h ile w e re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l f o r a n a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , itis al s o w el l es t abl i s hed thata di s m i s s al cons t i tut es a dr as t i c and e xtr eme sa nct i on. I d. at 867- 68. I n t hi s cas e, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatD i s tr i ctC our tw as corr ectt o r es or tt o s uchW e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 5 a dr as t i c and e xtr eme cour s e of a ct i on. 2 On a p p e a l , W i l l i a ms c h a l l e n g e s th e d i s mi s s a l o f h i s c a s e b a s e d o n p r o b l e ms
r es ul t i ng fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tC l erk’ s us e of a n out - of- dat e addr es s . W hi l e he ap p are n tl yn ev er f

il ed a f o rm al no ti ce reg ard ing the c h an g e o f a d d ress, th e D istri ct C o u rt C l erk w as evi dent l yaw ar e of the new addr es s , addr es s i ng and mai l i ng a l ett err egar di ng the s t atus of W i l l i ams’ s cas e t o SC I - H unt i ngt on. I n addi t i on, W i l l i ams l i s t ed hi s corr ect addr es s on hi s var i ous s ubm i s s i ons i n the ca s e, and he s peci fi cal l ypoi nt ed outthatan or derw as addr es s ed and mai l ed t o hi s “ol d pr i s on addr es s ” atSC I - Fay ett e i n a mot i on fi l ed on N ovember29, 2005. ( 11/ 29/ 05 M ot . at2. ) H e furthercl ai m s i n hi s i nform al appel l at e br i ef thatthe pr i s on offi ci al s del ay ed and otherw i s e i nt er fer ed i n forw ar di ng t he in c o rre c tlya d d re ss e d o rd e rs. A c c o rd in g to W ill iam s, h e d id n o t re c e iv e th e M a g istra te J udge’ s or dergr ant i ng hi s r eques tforan ext ens i on of t i m e, atl eas tpr i ort o the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o n M a rc h 6 , 2 0 0 7 . It ap p e a rs, th e re f o re , tha t h e lac k e d n o tice o f b o th th e n e e d to s u b m it a d d itio n a l d o c u m e n ts a n d th e s p e c if ic d a te b yw h ic h h e h a d to d o s o . Fur therm or e, the D i s tr i ctC our tneverexpr es s l ycons i der ed the pr obl ems w i th the mai l i ng a d d re s s a n d th e irp o s s ib le e f f e c ts b e f o re d is m is s in g th e e n tir e c a s e . T urni ng t o t he s peci fi c Poul i s fac t or s , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yacknow l edged th a t th e se c o n d f

a c to r sh o u ld n o t b e w e ig h e d a g a in st W ill iam s b e c a u se th e re a p p e a re d to be no s peci fi c pr ej udi ce t o t he as
- y etuns erved def endant s . N everthel es s , the fi ndi ng ofI ti s true thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr evi ous l ydi s m i s s ed the ca s e w i thoutpr ej udi ce . 3 N everthel es s , ther e w as no anal y s i s offe r ed as t o w hetheranotherdi s m i s s al w i thout prej ud i ce w ou l d st i l l serve as a suff i ci ent s ancti on , especi al l ygiven t he m ai l i ng add res s p rob lem s an d the o ther c ir cu m stan ce s o f th is case
. In a d d it ion , the D istri ct C o u rt i ncorr ect l ys t at ed thati tdi s m i s s ed thi s cas e tw i ce forfai l ur e t o pr ovi de di r ect i ons and f o rm s f o r s e rv ic e . It is c le a r t h a t th e re w a s o n ly o n e p ri o r d is m is s a l o n s u c h g ro u n d s . 6 w i l ful nes s and bad f

ai th on t he partof W i l l i ams w as nots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. T he D i s tr i ctC our tneverm ade a s peci fi c fi ndi ng of “i nt ent i onal ors el f- s ervi ng behavi or ” by W i l l i ams. A dams v. T r s . of N
. J . B r ew eryE m p. Pens i on T r . Fund, 29 F. 3d 863, 875 ( 3d C i r . 1994)
. I n fac t , i tdoes notappea rthatan ongoi ng fai l ur e t o pr ovi de s ervi ce document s w oul d actual l yfur therW i l l i ams’ s ow n i nt er es t s , es peci al l ygi ven thatthe
s u b mi s s i o n o f

th e d o c u me n t s wa s n e c e s s a ryf o rh i s l a ws u i tt o mo v e f o rwa r d
. W i l l i a ms al s o w as s ucce s s ful i n s ubm i t t i ng hi s U SM 285 form s . H e otherw i s e ac t i vel ypart i ci pat ed i n thi s l i t i gat i on, fi l i ng m ot i ons and r es pons es t o the var i ous j udi ci al or der s , and ar gui ng th a t p ri s o n a u th o ri tie s in te rf e re d w ith h is a b ility to s u b m it th e n e c e s s a ry d o c u m e n ts . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e ar e unabl e t o acc eptthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng that W ill iam s “ h a s n o in ter e st in m o v in g th is c a se a lo n g e x p e d ien tly .” (R e p o rt & R ec o m m en d ati o n at 5-6 . ) L ikew ise, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t ade q u atelyad d ress the fifth a n d sixth f ac tors
u n d er P o u li s. W ith resp ec t t o the f ifth fa ctor, i t m ere lyad d resse d the f u ti li tyo f a n aw ard of att orney s ’ fee s , w i thoutexpr es s l ycons i der i ng anyothers anct i ons l es s dr as t i c than a di s m i s s al of the ent i r e ca s e w i th pr ej udi ce. See, e. g. , L andon v. H unt , 977 F. 2d 829, 833 3W e, how ever , w i l l denythe uns uppor t ed r eques t s i n W i l l i ams’ s i nform al br i ef f or 4 the ca s e t o be r emanded t o a di ffe r entD i s tr i ctJ udge and f oran or derdi r ect i ng the D i s tr i ct C o u rt to a p p o in t c o u n s e l. 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( in d ic a tin g th a t d is m is s a l f o r f a ilu re to p ro s e c u te w a s w ith p re ju d ic e ). Fur therm or e, ther e w as no anal y s i s w hat s oeverof the under l y i ng m er i t s , w i th the D i s tr i ct C ou rtsi m plyst at i ng that the si xth fact or w ou l d b e w ei gh ed n ei ther i n fav or nor against W ill iam s. N e v e rth e les s, W ill iam s’s v a rio u s c laim s d o n o t ap p e a r to b e c o m p lete ly la c k in g in a n ym e ri t, a t le a s t f o r p u rp o s e s o f

th e P o u lis in q u ir y . A dm i t t edly , W i l l i am s bore personal res po nsi bil i tyfor the co nd uct of his pro se c a se , an d h e a lso d e m o n stra ted “ a p ro tra c ted h isto ryo f d ilato rin e ss .” (R e p o rt & R e c o m m e n d a tio n a t 5 .) W e a lso e m p h a siz e th a t W ill iam s s til l h a s a n o b lig a tio n to
c o m p ly w ith c o u rt o rd e rs a n d to s u b m it th e d o c u m e n ts n e c e s s a ry f o r s e rv ic e o f

p ro c e s s . N everthel es s , m os tof the Poul i s fac t or s , t ogetherw i th the pr obl ems w i th hi s m ai l i ng addr es s , w ei ghed hea vi l yagai ns tthe dr as t i c s anct i on of di s m i s s al
. I n l i ghtof the
es t abl i s hed pr es um pt i on that“doubt s s houl d be r es ol ved i n favorof r eac hi ng a dec i s i on on the mer i t s , ” Scarbor ough v. E ubanks , 747 F. 2d 871, 878 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed), w e m ustcon cl ud e i tw as an ab use of dis cret i on for the D i stri ctC ou rtt o d i sm i ss forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. 4 III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tand
re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .