Deborah Lee Roseboro v. Executive Office of the United States Department of Justice, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Deborah Lee Roseboro’s amended complaint without prejudice. The court permitted Roseboro to file a second amended complaint within thirty days, denied her renewed in forma pauperis motion as moot, and denied her renewed motion for appointment of counsel as premature.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Roseboro was permitted thirty days to file a complete second amended complaint identifying every defendant and stating the basis for each claim.
2. A plaintiff who does not wish to amend may file an appropriate notice stating an intent to stand on the complaint, after which dismissal is appropriate; failure to respond to an order providing that choice may permit the court to infer an intent to stand on the complaint.
3. The second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as moot because Roseboro had already been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
4. The second motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice as premature.
5. The six-factor test from Poulis is not required for a dismissal based on a plaintiff's decision to stand on a complaint or willful abandonment that leaves the case without an operative pleading.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and Roseboro permitted to file a further amended complaint.
2. Whether Roseboro's second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted when she had already been granted in forma pauperis status.
3. Whether Roseboro's second motion to appoint counsel should be granted at that stage of the proceedings.
4. Whether a plaintiff may elect to stand on a defective complaint and, if so, whether failure to respond may be treated as an indication of that intent.

Disposition

dismissed