Yazzmine Gallimore v. Merakey, et al.

Gallimore · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 4, 2026 · No. 25-CV-6089

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lifts the stay in Yazzmine Gallimore’s action against Merakey and other defendants and dismisses the complaint without prejudice. The order permits Gallimore to file an amended complaint within 30 days, or to notify the Court that she intends to stand on the original complaint, warning that failure to respond will result in a final dismissal.

Holdings

  1. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file a complete amended complaint within thirty days.
  2. If the plaintiff does not amend or file a notice stating that she intends to stand on the complaint, the court may infer an intent to stand on the complaint and issue a final dismissal.
  3. The six-factor Poulis test is inapplicable and need not be analyzed when dismissal is based on a plaintiff's intention to stand on the complaint rather than failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the initial complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for the reasons stated in the court's memorandum.
  2. Whether Gallimore should be permitted to amend the complaint within thirty days.
  3. Whether a plaintiff's failure to amend or otherwise respond may be treated as an intention to stand on the complaint and lead to a final dismissal without requiring analysis under the Poulis factors.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (7)

  • Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232, 239-41 (3d Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976)(followed)
  • In re Westinghouse Securities Litigation, 90 F.3d 696, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984)(distinguished)
  • Elansari v. Altria, 799 F. App'x 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Dickens v. Danberg, 700 F. App'x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 292 F.R.D. 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…