Herrera v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY E. HERRERA,
Plaintiff
V.
AGENTS OF PENNSYLVANIA
BOARD OF PROBATION
AND PAROLE, et al.,
Defendants
CIV. ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-1530
(JUDGE MANNION)
MEMORANDUM
This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
For the reasons set forth below, the case will be dismissed with prejudice for
plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Jeffrey E. 	Herrera, filed this case on September 30, 	2022,
asserting that defendants violated his civil rights by holding him in prison
beyond his maximum release date. (Doc. 1). On November 9, 2022, the court
dismissed 	the 	case 	with 	prejudice, 	finding 	that 	it 	barred 	by 	Heck 	v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Docs. 12-13). The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated this judgment and remanded the case,
concluding 	that 	the 	case 	was 	not 	barred 	by 	Heck, 	but 	that 	Herrera's
Case 3:22-cv-01530-MEM-LT Document 76 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 5

complaint may 	nonetheless 	be 	subject to 	dismissal 	because 	it may 	be
untimely. 	(Doc. 37-1 ). The court accordingly directed this court to grant
Herrera leave to amend his complaint to determine whether equitable tolling
of the statute of limitations is warranted . (Id.)
Shortly 	thereafter, 	plaintiff 	filed 	a 	"petition 	to 	equitably 	toll" 	the
limitations period. (Doc. 40). The court, liberally construing this document as
a request to 	litigate the timeliness 	and 	equitable tolling 	issues through
motions practice rather than through an amended complaint, granted the
request, reopened the case, and gave plaintiff a deadline to file a legal brief
presenting his arguments. (Doc. 41 ). Plaintiff then filed sixteen motions in the
ensuing months complaining about the court's handling of this and various
other procedural issues. The court resolved these motions in an omnibus
order on December 8, 	2025, denying or deeming withdrawn the motions
except 	to 	the 	extent 	they 	sought 	leave 	to 	amend 	plaintiff's timeliness
arguments. (Doc. 74). The court accordingly required plaintiff to file a single
brief presenting his arguments within thirty days. (Id.)
On 	December 	17, 	2025, 	the 	court's 	order 	was 	returned 	as
undeliverable, with a notation indicating that plaintiff had been released from
the 	county 	prison 	in 	which 	he 	was 	previously 	detained. 	(Doc. 	75).
Subsequent searches 	by the court on 	the online inmate locators of the
2
Case 3:22-cv-01530-MEM-LT Document 76 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 5

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the United States Bureau of
Prisons indicate that he is also not in state or federal custody. 	In light of
Herrera's failure to keep the court informed of his current mailing address
despite his obligation to do so, (see Doc. 4 ), the court will analyze whether
dismissal of the case for Herrera's failure to prosecute is appropriate.
11. 	DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b) allows for the dismissal of an
action for "failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with these rules or
order of court. " Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b). When determining whether to dismiss
a case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41 (b ), the court must balance the
factors set forth in Pou/is v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863
(3d Cir. 1984 ). These factors include:
(1) 	the 	extent 	of the 	party's 	personal 	responsibility; (2) 	the
prejudice 	to 	the 	adversary 	caused 	by 	the 	failure 	to 	meet
schedul i ng 	orders 	and 	respond to discovery; 	(3) a history of
dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney
was willful or in bad faith ; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other
than dismissal , which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions;
and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
kl at 868. Not all of the Pou/is factors must be satisfied in order for a court
to dismiss a complaint. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992).
The first three Pou/is factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case.
First, because Herrera is proceeding pro se, he is personally responsible for
3
Case 3:22-cv-01530-MEM-LT Document 76 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 5

his failure to comply with the court's orders. Emerson v. Thiel Coll ., 296 F.3d
184, 191 (3d Cir. 2002). Second , his failure to update his address prejudices
to defendants by delaying resolution of the case. Manuel v. Harry, No. 1:20-
CV-2309, 2021 WL 602723, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2021). Third, Herrera
has shown a history of dilatoriness by failing to update his address. Id.
The 	court 	finds 	that 	the 	fourth 	and 	fifth 	Pou/is 	factors-whether
plaintiff's conduct was willful or in bad faith and the effectiveness of sanctions
other than dismissal-also weigh in favor of dismissal. First, his failure to
abide by court orders demonstrates a willful disregard for procedural rules
and court directives. Second, because the court does not have a current
mailing address for him and thus cannot meaningfully enforce any other
sanctions against him at this time, the court is without any viable alternative
to dismissal. The sixth and final factor, the meritoriousness of plaintiff's claim,
also weighs 	in favor of dismissal. 	As 	noted above, the Third Circuit has
concluded that plaintiff's complai nt is facially untimely and has remanded for
further proceedings to determine whether equitable tolling 	is 	necessary.
(Doc. 37-1 ). Herrera has not presented any equitable tolling arguments since
the 	case 	was 	remanded . Thus, 	on 	the 	current 	record, 	it 	appears 	that
dismissing the complaint as untimely would likely be appropriate.
4
Case 3:22-cv-01530-MEM-LT Document 76 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 5

Upon balancing the 	Pou/is factors, 	the court finds that they weigh
heavily in favor of dismissal. In light of plaintiff's failures to comply with court
orders, we will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Hamer v. 	LivaNova
Deutsch/and GmbH, 994 F.3d 173, 177 n.3 (3d Cir. 2021) ("District courts
have authority under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
dismiss claims with 	prejudice for failure to comply with a court order ." ).
However, because the court has not previously given Herrera notice that the
case 	may 	be 	dismissed 	for 	his 	failure 	to 	prosecute, 	the 	court 	will
automatically reopen the case without Herrera having to file a formal notice
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60 if he updates his
address within thirty days of this decision .
Ill. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, the 	court 	will 	dismiss 	this 	case 	with
prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41 (b ). An appropriate order shall issue.
Dated:
2 2-1 530-04
5
Case 3:22-cv-01530-MEM-LT Document 76 Filed 12/19/25 Page 5 of 5