2010 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 5-11-2010 

# B obby L ynn v . J ohn T ucc i 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 . 09-3930

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_2010

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 2010 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 " Bo b b y L ynn v . J o hn T uc c i " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1362. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1362DL D- 1 7 9 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. 09- 3930

___________ BO BB Y L . L YNN v. P O L IC E O F F IC E R JO H N T U C C I, L O W E R M E R IO N P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T ; POLI CE O FF I CER CA M ERO N PA RK ER, PA. 0 4 6 1 4 0 0 , EM PLOY ED A T L O W E R M E R IO N T O W N S H IP P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T ; L OWER M E RI ON P OL I CE DE P AR T M E NT B obbyL ee Lynn, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 08- cv- 01759) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel H . Sl om s ky

____________________________________ 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 A pr i l 29, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay11, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

### 2

B obbyL ee Lynn appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s s ui tw i t h pr ej udi ce forfai l ur e t o compl yw i t h a courtor der . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l vaca t e the order of dis m i ssal and rem and for further proceedings. I. L ynn, a Penns y l vani a i nm at e, comm ence d t hi s act i on i n A pr i l 2008 byfi l i ng an a p p lica tio n f

o r le a v e to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ris (I F P ). A s th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted in a n o rd e r d ism iss in g th e IF P a p p lica tio n w ith o u t p re ju d ice , L yn n a p p a re n tly“ se e k s to pr ocee d [I FP] w i t h a ci vi l r i ght s act i on agai ns ts ever al pol i ce of fi cer s empl oy ed bythe L ow erM er i on T ow ns hi p Pol i ce D epart m ent . Speci fi cal l y[Ly nn] compl ai ns thathe w as il lega ll yarrested o n D ec em b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 . ” 8 /14 /08 M em o ran d u m O rde r at 1 (d o ck et # 7 ). A fter L yn n ex p resse d a d esire to p roc ee d w ith the a cti o n , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed l eave t o pr ocee d I FP. T he D i s t r i ctC our tther eaf t erent er ed an or derdi r ect i ng L yn n to f

ile a C o m p lain t. T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t L yn n ’s s u b m iss io n s o n f ile w ith th e c o u rt d id n o t co n stitu te a f o rm a l C o m p lain t, an d th a t L yn n m u st f ile a C o m p lain t “to p rop erlyan d co rrectl yinsti tute this civil ac ti o n . ” 2 /20 /09 O rde r at 1 (d o ck et # 1 3 ). O n Sept ember9, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed a s um m aryor derdi s m i s s i ng t he act i on s ua s pont e and w i t h pr ej udi ce, not i ng thatL ynn had fa i l ed t o fi l e a Com pl ai ntas re q u ire d b yth e c o u rt’s o rd e r. L yn n tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. II. L yn n h a s b e e n g ra n ted lea v e to p ro c e e d IF P o n a p p e a l. W e h a v e a p p e llate

### 3

j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h e d i s m i s s a l o f L yn n ’ s s u i tf

o rf a i l u r e t o c o m p l y a cour tor deri s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on. See G uy erv. B ear d, 907 F. 2d 1424, 1429 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . T he part i es w er e advi s ed thatthi s C our tm i ghtt ake s um m aryact i on on a pp e a l , a nd t he yw e r e a ff or de d a n o pp ortun i t yt o r e s po nd . Se e 3d Ci r . L. A . R. 24 . 7; I . O . P. 10. 6. Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e w hen “no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed. ” I d. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yd ism iss in g L yn n ’s s u it w i t houtaddr es s i ng t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n Poul i s v. St at e Farm Fi r e and Casua l t yC o. , 747 F .2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 8 (3 d C ir.1 9 8 4 ). A d istric t co u rt h a s a u th o rityto d ism iss a n a c tio n su a sp o n te i f a l i t i gantfai l s t o pr os ecut e ort o compl yw i t h a courtor der . Fed. R . C i v. P. 41( b) ; s ee al so L i nk v. W abash R . R . C o. , 37 0 U . S . 62 6, 63 0-31 (19 62 ). B ut a di stri ctcou rtm ust fi r s tcons i dert he s i x “Poul i s fac t or s ” bef or e s o di s m i s s i ng the ac t i on. U ni t ed St at es v. $8, 221, 877. 16 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 330 F. 3d 141, 161 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hos e fa ct or s ar e: “(1 ) th e e x tent o f th e p arty ’s pe rson al resp o n sibil ity ; ( 2 ) th e p rejud ice to the ad v ersa ry caus ed byt he fa i l ur e t o m eets chedul i ng or der s and r es pond t o di s covery ; ( 3) a hi s t or yof di l at or i nes s ; ( 4) w hethert he conduc tof the part yorthe att orneyw as w i l l ful ori n bad fai t h; ( 5) t he 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) t he mer i t or i ous nes s of the cl ai m ordefe ns e. ” Poul i s , 747 F . 2d at86 8. A sua spon t e dis m i ssal un der R ule 41(b) i s consi dered “ex t rem e” and “m ust b e a san cti o n o f last, n o t fi rst , reso rt . ” P o u li s, 7 4 7 F . 2 d at 86 7 -69 . O n lyin rare circu m stan ce s, su ch as th o se d em o n str ati n g “c o n tum ac iou s” c o n d u ct, m aya d istri ct co u rtdi s pens e w i t h t he Poul i s fac t or s al t ogether . G uy er , 907 F. 2d at1429- 30; s ee Spai n v.

G all eg o s, 2 6 F . 3 d 4 3 9 , 4 5 4 -55 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Lynn’ s s ui tw i t h pr ej udi ce w i t houtm ent i oni ng, m uch l es s cons i der i ng, t he Poul i s fac t or s , and i tdi d notcons i derw hethera l es s ers anct i on w oul d bet t ers erve the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce. See G uy er , 907 F. 2d at1429- 30. T he D i s t r i ct C our tal s o fai l ed t o aff

or d L ynn an oppor tuni t yt o expl ai n hi s fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h the or derr equi r i ng t hathe fi l e a mor e form al compl ai nt . See A l i v. Si m s , 788 F. 2d 954, 958 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( di s t r i ctcour tfi ndi ng thatpart yhad “br aze nl yi gnor ed” or derw as insu ff ici en t t o justi fyd ism issal of the a cti o n ).

III . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l sum m aril yv ac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s S e p tem b e r 9 , 2 0 0 9 , o rd e r a n d re m a n d th is m a tter f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n .

4