Opinion ID: 3036297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiff’s custodian is further

Text: ordered to notify this Court of the Plaintiff’s status by 3:00 p.m. on this date. Pursuant to this order, the prison officials notified the District Court that Briscoe continued to refuse to be transported. Thus, the District Court entered a second order, cancelling the conference. On September 10, 2004, the District Court dismissed Briscoe’s case for failure to prosecute and comply with its orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). In its order, the court considered the six factors applicable to dismissing a case pursuant to Rule 41(b) as set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). It noted that Briscoe’s claims “were based in some 7 merit” because they “had successfully cleared the summary judgment hurdle and were in posture to proceed to trial.” However, it found that the remaining factors were not in favor of Briscoe. It found that Briscoe was personally responsible for his refusal to attend the conference, his refusal was willful because he had ignored the court’s specific warning to him, and his failure to attend the conference prejudiced the defendants because the defendants could not “effectively prepare for trial so as to bring the litigation to a resolution.” Additionally, it found that, although Briscoe did not have a history of dilatoriness, his refusal to attend the conference was a dilatory tactic in light of his request for an extension of time to comply with the court’s order regarding pretrial documentation. Finally, it found that alternative sanctions were unavailable in the present case. Based on its evaluation of these factors, the District Court dismissed Briscoe’s case. Its order stated: 1. The Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED ON THE MERITS for failure to prosecute and comply with orders of [the] Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case; 3. Any appeal from this Order will be deemed frivolous, lacking in probable cause and not in good faith. 8 On September 29, 2004, Briscoe filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.2