NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-4320

___________

WILLIAM BELL,

Appellant

v.

PLEASANTVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-09-cv-04614)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 2, 2014

Before: HARDIMAN, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 11, 2014)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

William Bell appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint as a 

sanction. We will affirm.

William Bell filed suit against the Pleasantville Housing Authority (“PHA”) 
2

alleging that it wrongfully evicted him. The District Court dismissed his complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but we vacated and remanded after concluding that 

Bell’s complaint raised a federal question—i.e., a due process claim based on his eviction 

in alleged violation of the regulations of the United States Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (“HUD”). See Bell v. Pleasantville Hous. Auth., 443 F. App’x 731, 

735 (3d Cir. 2011).

On remand, Bell repeatedly failed to appear for his deposition even though the 

District Court appointed counsel to represent him for that purpose. He also refused to 

respond to the PHA’s discovery requests and to appear for various court-ordered 

conferences. The Magistrate Judge finally convened a show cause hearing, at which Bell 

also failed to appear. The Magistrate Judge continued the hearing and, when Bell finally 

appeared, gave Bell one last chance to appear for his deposition. When Bell again failed 

to do so, the PHA filed a third motion to dismiss Bell’s complaint as a sanction under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Bell did not oppose the motion (or the PHA’s prior 

motions), and the Magistrate Judge recommended granting it. Bell also did not object to 

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, and the District Court adopted it and dismissed 

his complaint. The District Court later granted the PHA’s request to withdraw its 

counterclaim, and Bell appeals from that final order.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s 

dismissal of a complaint as a sanction for abuse of discretion. See Poulis v. State Farm 

Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). In this case, the District Court 
3

properly recognized that dismissal is a drastic sanction to be imposed as a last resort, but 

it carefully balanced the factors set forth in Poulis and concluded that dismissal was 

warranted in light of Bell’s repeated failures to appear for his deposition and to respond 

to PHA’s discovery requests. Bell does not challenge the District Court’s application of 

the Poulis factors, and the District Court acted well within its discretion in dismissing his 

complaint for the reasons the Magistrate Judge adequately explained.

Bell’s sole argument on appeal is that the Fair Housing Act and HUD’s policies 

and regulations confer on him a “privilege to refuse to answer discovery and appear for 

deposition.” (Appellant’s Br. at 1.) He contends in that regard that the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure do not govern this action. Bell did not raise that argument below, and 

there is no support for it. The Fair Housing Act authorizes aggrieved persons to 

commence a “civil action” in, inter alia, “an appropriate United States district court[.]”

42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedure 

in all civil actions . . . in the United States district courts[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Those 

rules, including the discovery obligations they impose, are thus fully applicable in this 

civil action. Bell’s unsupported assertion to the contrary is frivolous and serves only to 

further demonstrate the willfulness of his refusal to comply with his obligations.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.