1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1603

___________

HELENE KARPIEL,

Appellant

v.

OGG, CORDES, MURPHY & IGNELZI, L.L.P., THE FIRM;

GARY J. OGG, ESQ.; SAMUEL J. CORDES, ESQ.;

MICHAEL A. MURPHY, ESQ.; PHILIP A. IGNELZI, ESQ.

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-00523)

District Judge: Honorable David Stewart Cercone

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 15, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, SCIRICA AND GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 16, 2010)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Helene Karpiel, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order 
2

dismissing her case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. For the reasons 

that follow, we will affirm.

I.

In 2004, Karpiel commenced this lawsuit by filing a complaint (and several 

amendments thereto) in the District Court against the law firm Ogg, Cordes, Murphy & 

Ignelzi, L.L.P. — her former employer — and the firm’s named partners (all defendants 

are hereinafter collectively referred to as “OCMI”). OCMI moved to dismiss the 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The 

District Court denied the motion, concluding that Karpiel had sufficiently pleaded a claim 

under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1001 et seq., in that she alleged that she had been unable to recover benefits under the 

firm’s employee benefit plan.

In October 2005, the District Court held a case management conference, during 

which it set a discovery deadline of December 9, 2005. OCMI subsequently noticed 

Karpiel’s deposition for December 9, 2005, but she did not appear for it.

1

 As a result, 

OCMI moved to extend the discovery period. The court granted that request, extending 

the deadline to June 9, 2006. On May 15, 2006, Karpiel moved to further extend the

deadline, averring that she was unable to currently proceed because of her various 

 

1 According to OCMI, Karpiel informed them that she had fractured her foot about

a month before the deposition date, and that she was unaware that the deposition 

had been scheduled for December 9, 2005, because she had not checked her 
3

medical conditions. The court granted the motion and extended the deadline to 

September 1, 2006.

On August 29, 2006, Karpiel moved for another extension, again claiming that her 

compromised health prevented her from proceeding with the case. This time, however, 

the court denied her request. In November 2006, at which point Karpiel still had yet to 

appear for her deposition, OCMI filed a motion to compel. The court granted OCMI’s 

motion and ordered Karpiel to appear for her deposition by January 19, 2007. The 

deposition finally took place on January 12, 2007.

In June 2007, OCMI moved for summary judgment, arguing that Karpiel had not 

exhausted her remedies under the firm’s employee benefit plan. The District Court 

granted the motion, but we vacated that decision on appeal, concluding that OCMI had

not demonstrated that Karpiel had failed to exhaust those remedies. See Karpiel v. Ogg, 

Cordes, Murphy & Ignelzi, LLP, 297 F. App’x 192, 194 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

On remand, the District Court scheduled a pretrial conference for November 6, 

2009. OCMI attended the conference but Karpiel did not.

2

 The court subsequently 

scheduled trial to begin on January 20, 2010. On January 7, 2010, the court issued an 

order stating that the case would be dismissed if Karpiel failed to appear at trial.

 

mailbox in the month leading up to that date.

2 Karpiel appears to claim that the order setting the date for the pretrial conference 

was initially sent to the wrong address, and that she did not receive it until after 

the conference had taken place.
4

On the day trial was scheduled to begin, Karpiel filed an untitled motion, which 

stated, inter alia, that she was “unable to obtain legal counsel, am unable, at this time, to 

proceed further with this case until I am able to be represented by legal counsel . . . .” 

(Motion filed on Jan. 20, 2010, at 1.) When she appeared in court that day, she explained

that “there’s no way that I can be at a trial, can go to trial.” (Supp. App’x at 24.) She 

indicated that she had been unsuccessful in obtaining an attorney despite her many 

attempts to do so, and that she was not physically able to proceed. (See id. at 24-25.) 

In response to these averments, the District Court explained to Karpiel that 

“[w]hen you tell the Court that you are unable to proceed today because you do not have 

counsel, after years of trying to get counsel, and that you are physically unable to 

proceed, then I have to deem this as a situation where there’s a failure to prosecute your 

claim.” (Id. at 27.) Then, after considering and ultimately rejecting the possibility of a 

motion to postpone the trial, the court made clear that “this is the date the Court has 

scheduled for this case and we shall proceed, if Ms. Karpiel wishes to proceed.” (Id. at 

29.) Karpiel responded as follows:

I can’t. I absolutely cannot. I’m sorry, Your Honor. You’re 

right, I don’t know if things will change because I have been 

trying — I’m all worn out from trying to get an attorney. I 

don’t know. I spent every last cent I have. I borrowed money 

from my friends, right. I don’t know what to do anymore.

(Id.)

Upon hearing Karpiel’s response, the District Court concluded that it had “no real, 
5

I don’t think, any real option but to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) The 

court then adjourned the proceedings and, that same day, entered a three-page order 

dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In its order, the 

court considered the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 

863 (3d Cir. 1984), and made the following findings:

(1) Defendants, having endured approximately six (6) years 

of litigation, will be prejudiced by any further extensions of 

time; (2) it is much more likely than not that a postponement 

will not result in a change of Plaintiff’s pro se status; 

(3) Plaintiff has litigated this action from its inception and has 

provided no legitimate reason why she will not proceed; and 

(4) based on the complete record of this action, it is unlikely 

that Plaintiff would succeed on the merits of her claim.

(Supp. App’x at 21-22.) 

Karpiel now seeks review of the District Court’s January 20, 2010 order. We have 

jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.3

II.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte if a 

plaintiff fails to prosecute her case. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 

 

3 Karpiel filed her notice of appeal on February 22, 2010, 33 days after the District

Court’s January 20, 2010 order. Yet because that order did not comply with Fed.

R. Civ. P. 58(a)’s separate document requirement, see Leboon v. Lancaster Jewish

Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217, 224 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that an order must,

inter alia, “omit (or at least substantially omit) the trial court’s reasons for

disposing of the claims”), the time for filing her appeal did not begin to run until

June 21, 2010. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). Accordingly, her notice of

appeal is treated as having been timely filed on that date. See Fed. R. App. P.
6

(1962). Before doing so, however, the court must consider and balance the six Poulis

factors:

(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the 

prejudice to the adversary . . .; (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 or defense.

Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868 (emphasis omitted). There is no “magic formula” for balancing 

these factors, see Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992), nor must all of 

the factors be satisfied for a district court to dismiss a case. Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 

322 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2003). Such a dismissal “constitutes an exercise of the district 

court judge’s discretion and must be given great deference by this Court.” Mindek, 964 

F.2d at 1373. Accordingly, we review the District Court’s dismissal of Karpiel’s case for 

abuse of discretion. See Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 258 (3d Cir. 2008).

At least four of the Poulis factors weighed in favor of dismissing Karpiel’s case. 

First, Karpiel, as a pro se litigant, was personally responsible for her inability to

prosecute her case. See id. at 258-59. Second, the record supports the District Court’s 

finding that granting another extension in this case — a case that had already been 

pending for roughly six years — would have prejudiced OCMI, particularly given that 

they were prepared to try the case that day and apparently had arranged for independent 

witnesses to testify. Third, Karpiel’s failure to proceed at trial was one of several 

 

4(a)(2). 
7

instances in which she had delayed the resolution of this case. Fourth, given her failure 

to explain how she intended to proceed with her case, there is no indication that 

postponing the trial constituted a viable alternative to dismissal. Moreover, she has not 

identified any alternative sanctions that the court could have imposed in lieu of 

dismissal.4

For the foregoing reasons, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its 

discretion in holding that a balancing of the Poulis factors weighed in favor of dismissal. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s January 20, 2010 order. Karpiel’s 

motion for appointment of counsel, as well as her request for leave to amend her opening 

brief, are denied.

 

4 Given that Karpiel has been proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, it seems 

that a monetary sanction was not a viable option. See Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 262-63.