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 1-11-2008 

# B arge r v . W alt on 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 . 07-2827

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 " B arg e r v . W alt on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1759. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1759NOT 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- 2827

___________ ROBER T KARL B ARGER, A ppel l ant

v. J O H N R . W A L T O N , W ar den; NAPH- CARE, I NC,

____________________________________ 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. 06- cv- 01620) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d S. C er cone

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

D ece m ber28, 2007 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J anuary11, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM

A p p e llan t, R o b e rt K a rl B a rg e r, is c o n f in e d a t S C I-G re e n sb u rg in Penns y l vani a. B ar gerfi l ed a pr o s e l aw s ui tunder28 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns tthe pr i s on w ard en an d it s h ea lth ca re c o n tr ac ti n g co m p an y , all eg ing d en ial o f m ed ical care fo r a2

s pr ai ned ankl e, a s t aph i nfec t i on i n hi s ear s , and hemor rhoi ds . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgave B ar gerperm i s s i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s , butul t i m at el ydi s m i s s ed hi s cas e for fai l ur e t o pr os ecut e underFed. R . C i v. P. 41( b) . W e exe r ci s e 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 tr i ctC our t ’ s or derforabus e of di s cr et i on. Poul i s v. S ta te F a rm F ir e & 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 ). I. B eca us e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e r eci t e onl ythe fa ct s es s ent i al forour d e c isio n . A f

ter B a rg e r f

iled h is c o m p lain t, th e D istric t C o u rt o rd e re d B a rg e r to c o m p lete s ervi ce of

pr oces s form s . T he courtdi d notr ece i ve thes e document s , s o on J anuary12, 2 0 0 7 , itiss u e d a n o rd e r to sh o w c a u se w h yth e c a se sh o u ld n o t b e d ism iss e d f o r f a ilu re to pr os ecut e. I n r es pons e, B ar gerfi l ed a mot i on forext ens i on of t i m e, al ert i ng the D i s tr i ct C our tthathe w as havi ng tr oubl e w i th fi l i ng the form s : hi s m ai l had bee n l os t , and he ha d been pl ace d i n t he pr i s on’ s di s ci pl i naryuni t . T he courtgr ant ed hi s m ot i on.

S u b se q u e n tly , B a rg e r f

iled m o tio n s f

o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l, amendm ent s t o hi s compl ai nt , and a di s coverym ot i on, butdi d notfi l e the r eques t ed s ervi ce of

pr oces s form s . T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatB ar ger ’ s compl ai ntbe di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. B ar gerr es ponded, expl ai ni ng that , al though he had m ade s ever al att empt s t o m ai l the r eques t ed s ervi ce of pr oces s document s t o the court , he had bee n havi ng tr oubl e w i th hi s m ai l l eavi ng the pr i s on s i nce D ece m ber2006 w hen he i ni t i at ed hi s l aw s ui tagai ns tthe pr i s on. O n J une 13, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued anT he M agi s tr at e J udge found no s peci fi c pr ej udi ce a gai ns tthe def endant s , and, 1 th e re f o re , d id n o t w e ig h th e s e c o n d f a c to r a g a in s t B a rg e r. 3 order adop t i ng the M agis trat e Judg e’s recom m end at i on and dis m i ssi ng B arger ’s case as a s a n c tio n f

o r f a ilu re to p ro s e c u te . B a rg e r a p p e a le d . II. D i s m i s s al s forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e ar e “dr as t i c” a nd “extr eme” s anct i ons and “s houl d be r es erved” f

orcas es w her e ther e has been “ ‘ fl agr antbad fa i th’ on the partof the pl ai nt i ffs . ” Poul i s , 747 F. 2d at867- 68 ( quot i ng N at ’ l H ockeyL eague v. M etr o. H o c k e yC lu b , In c ., 4 2 7 U .S . 6 3 9 , 6 4 3 (1 9 7 6 )). O u r re v iew is “ g u id e d b yth e m a n n e r in w h ich th e [ D istric t C o u rt] b a lan c e 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 fi ndi ngs . ” A l i v. Si m s , 788 F. 2d 954, 957 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . T hos e fa ct or s ar e: ( 1) the ext ent of the party ’ s per s onal r es pons i bi l i ty ; ( 2) the pr ej udi ce t o the adve r s arycaus ed bythe fai l ure t o m eetschedu l i ng orders and res po nd t o d i scovery ; (3) a his t oryof d i l at ori ness; ( 4) w hetherthe conduc tof the partyorthe att orneyw as w i l l ful ori n bad fa i th; ( 5) the eff ect 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 a n c tio n s ; a n d (6 ) t h e m e ri to ri o u s n e s s o f th e c la im o r d e f

e n s e . P o u lis , 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 8 6 8 . A l though w e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe fi r s tand thi r d fac t or s w ei gh i n favorof d ism iss a l, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e f o rth , fif th a n d six th f

a c to rs d o n o t. 1 A. T he M agi s tr at e J udge conc l uded thatfac t orfourw ei ghed aga i ns tB ar ger b ec au se h e “ w il lfu ll yign o red ” the D istri ct C o u rt ’s prior o rde rs. H o w ev er, th e re co rd4

does nots uppor tthatconcl us i on. “W i l l ful nes s ” r equi r es a s how i ng of “i nt ent i onal or s el f- s ervi ng behavi or . ” A dams v. T rus t ees of N . J . B r ew eryE m p. Pens i on T r . Fund, 29 F .3 d 8 6 3 , 8 7 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). A lit ig a n t’s f a ilu re “ to m o v e w ith th e d isp a tch re a so n a b ly expec t ed of a partypr os ecut i ng a ca s e” i s i ns uffi ci entt o gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of w illf u ln e s s . Id . a t 8 7 6 . H er e, B ar gerr es ponded t o both the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s J anuary12 and M ar ch 5 , 2 0 0 7 o rde rs, ex p lai n ing that the s erv ice o f p roc ess f o rm s w ere n o t r ea ch ing the c o u rt b e c a u se h is m a il w a s b e in g lo st in th e p riso n sy ste m a n d b e c a u se h e h a d b e e n c o n f in e d in the pr i s on’ s di s ci pl i naryuni t . I n hi s obj ect i ons t o the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, B ar gerexpl ai ned thatthes e di s rupt i ons t o hi s m ai l began i n D ece m ber 2006 w hen he f

i l ed hi s compl ai nt . M or eover , B ar ger ’ s m ot i ons forappoi nt m entof co u n sel ref

lect his co n fu sion an d d ifficu ltyin u n d erstan d ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er, r atherthan a w i l l ful att empt t o evade w hatotherw i s e appe ar s t o be a s i m pl e exe cut i on of a se rv ice o f

p ro c e ss f

o rm . B e sid e s, re g a rd les s o f w h e th e r B a rg e r’s a lleg a tio n s a re to b eli ev ed , itis un clea r w h at “se lf-serv ing ” p u rpo ses w o u ld b e f u rth ere d b yB arg er’s ref u sal t o fu rnish the c o u rtserv ice o f p roc ess f o rm s, sinc e the fil ing o f th o se f o rm s are n e c e s s a ry f

o r h is la w s u it to p ro c e e d a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts . B. W ith re sp e c t to f

a c to r f iv e , the M a g istra te J u d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t o n ly di s m i s s al w oul d be ef

fec t i ve i n t hi s cas e, s i nce s anct i ons l i ke att orney s fee s w oul d beT he s t andar d of m er i t or i ous nes s w hen r evi ew i ng di s m i s s al i s notas r i gor ous as t hat 2 r equi r ed forcl ai m s r evi ew ed unders um m aryj udgm ent . Poul i s , 747 F. 2d at869- 70. 5 us el es s i n an I FP act i on. H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d have di s m i s s ed the compl ai nt w i thoutpr ej udi ce, w hi ch w oul d have c om m uni cat ed the i m por t ance of t i m el yexec ut i ng o f se rv ice o f

p ro c e ss f

o rm s, w h ile a v o id in g a c o m p lete d ism iss a l o n th e m e rits w ith p re ju d ic e . C

Fi nal l y , the M agi s tr at e J udge s t at ed w i thoutanal y s i s thatthe s i xth fac t or nei therw ei ghed i n favorof noragai ns tB ar ger . H ow ever , w hen r evi ew i ng di s m i s s al , t he c o rre c t an a ly sis f

o r m e rito rio u sn e ss is w h e th e r th e “ a lleg a tio n s o f th e p lea d in g s, if es t abl i s hed attr i al , w oul d s uppor tr ecove rybypl ai nt i ff . . . . ” Poul i s , 747 F. 2d at869- 70. 2 B ar gercl ai m s thatpr i s on offi ci al s i gnor ed hi s pl eas form edi cal car e, even though they k n e w h e h a d a sp ra in e d a n k le, s tap h in f e c tio n , an d h e m o rrh o id s. F a c ially , the se c laim s, if proven attri al , m i gh tm ake o ut a const i tuti on al viol at i on . S i nce h i s cl ai m s ar e atl east f a c iallym e rito rio u s f

o r th e p u rp o se s o f

th is a n a ly sis , the six th P o u lis f a c to r w e ig h s in f a v o r o f B a rg e r. In w e ig h in g th e P o u lis f a c to rs, th e e sta b lish e d p re su m p tio n is th a t “d o u b ts 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) . I ti s appar entthatB ar gerbear s per s onal re s p o n s ib ility f

o r t h e d e la yin p ro s e c u tio n , a n d th a t th e re w a s a h is to ry o f d ila to ri n e s s . H ow ever , thos e fa ct or s ar e outw ei ghed bythe l ack of pr ej udi ce t o the adve r s ary , theW e m ake n o co nclusi on s r egardi ng the m eri t ori ou sness of B arger ’s cl ai m s. 3 6 abs ence of w i l l ful nes s and bad f ai th on B ar ger ’ s part , the ava i l abi l i tyof al t ernat i ve sa n c tio n s; a n d th e p o ten tial m e rito rio u sn e ss o f B a rg e r’s c laim s. B a lan c in g e a c h f a c to r in 3 l i ghtof the pr es um pt i on i n favorof a di s pos i t i on on the mer i t s , w e conc l ude thatthe D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it d ism iss e d B a rg e r’s c o m p lain t f o r f a ilu re to p rose cu te. S ee A d am s, 2 9 F . 3 d at 87 8 (ov erturn ing a d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal fo r fa il u re to p ro s e c u te o n th e s a m e g ro u n d s ). III .

A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tand r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs . T o t he ext entthatB ar gerr eques t s i n hi s br i ef the appoi nt m entof couns el forhi s appea l , thatm ot i on i s deni ed. See Tabr on v. G r ace , 6 F. 3d 147, 155 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).