Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Ronald Stockton’s pro se action for failure to prosecute after he failed to pay the filing fee or file an amended in forma pauperis motion as ordered. Applying the six-factor Poulis test, the court found that personal responsibility and the availability of alternative sanctions favored dismissal, while the remaining factors were neutral. The Clerk was directed to mark the case closed.
Holdings
- Dismissal was warranted because Stockton failed to comply with the order requiring him to resolve the filing-fee issue, and the Poulis factors did not weigh against dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or submit an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the Poulis factors supported dismissal.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (5)
- Anthony Hildebrand v. County of Allegheny, Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 258 (3d Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152 (3d Cir. 1988)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…