Rossetti v. Shapiro et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-00422-JKM Document18 Filed 03/09/26 Page1of4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BELINDA J. ROSSETTI, No. 1:25cv422
Plaintiff
(Judge Munley)
V.

JOSHUA D. SHAPIRO, et. al.
Defendants

eee eee ee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee
Cee

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On February 3, 2026, the court adopted a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) from Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni, which recommended dismissing
Plaintiff Belinda J. Rossetti pro se civil rights action. The R&R recommended
that Rossetti’s pro se complaint be dismissed without prejudice, so that she could
file an amended complaint relating only to selective enforcement. (Doc. 16 at 12—
15). The court adopted that recommendation with a caveat—affording Rossetti
approximately thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint addressing only this
alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause. (Doc. 17 at 2). The court further
advised Rossetti that failure to file a second amended pleading within the
required period would result in dismissal of the action. Id. To date, Rossetti has
not filed an amended complaint nor requested an extension of time and the

deadline provided by the court has passed.

Case 1:25-cv-00422-JKM Document18 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2of4

If a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court orders, district
court judges are empowered to dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) and its own inherent authority to manage the docket for the

orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See R & C Oilfield Servs. LLC v.

Am. Wind Transp. Grp. LLC, 45 F.4th 655, 661 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing Link v.

Wabash RR. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31(1962)). Decisions regarding dismissal

of actions on these grounds rest in the sound discretion of the court and will not

be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d

184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002). Such discretion is regulated by the required balancing
of several factors: (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the
prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and
respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the
party 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. Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,

747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).
First, courts “should gauge a party’s knowledge before dismissing the

case|.]’ United States v. Brace, 1 F.4th 137, 144 (3d Cir. 2021). Rossetti

proceeds pro se in this case. She is personally responsible for not filing an

amended complaint as ordered. This factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

2

Case 1:25-cv-00422-JKM Document18 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3of4

Regarding the second Poulis factor, there is limited prejudice to defendants

since Rossetti’s complaint did not survive defendants’ motion to dismiss. This
factor weighs against dismissal. But “there is no magic formula or mechanical
calculation with regard to the Poulis analysis. In fact, no single factor is

dispositive, and...not all of the Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to dismiss

a complaint.” In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236, 246 (3d

Cir. 2013) (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

The third Poulis factor considers a history of dilatoriness, and the fourth
Poulis factor considers whether plaintiff's conduct was willful or in bad faith.
Here, despite being advised that she needed to plead additional facts to state a
selective enforcement claim against the defendants, Rossetti failed to file an
amended complaint by the court-imposed deadline. This action cannot move
forward on the allegations provided to date. By disobeying the court’s order,
Rossetti has stopped this case in its tracks. Such conduct reflects dilatoriness
and willfulness and supports dismissal of this action.

As for the availability of alternative sanctions, the fifth Poulis factor, plaintiff
is pro se and proceeds in forma pauperis. Fines or other monetary sanctions
would not be effective in this case. The only sanction available to the court is

dismissal.

Case 1:25-cv-00422-JKM Document18 Filed 03/09/26 Page4of4

Meritoriousness is the sixth and final Poulis consideration, and it is of

paramount importance. See Knoll v. City of Allentown, 707 F.3d 406, 409 (3d Cir.

2013). “A claim...will be deemed meritorious when the allegations of the
pleadings, if established at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff[.]” Poulis, 747
F.2d at 869-70. Here, in providing plaintiff with leave to amend, the court
believed that she could potentially state a plausible Equal Protection Clause
claim against the defendants. As detailed above, however, rather than attempt to
move this case forward for consideration on its merits, plaintiff has taken a
different approach. She appears willing to stand on the allegations of her original
complaint. Those allegations fell short of stating a meritorious claim as detailed
by Magistrate Judge Camoni in the R&R. Because plaintiff has refused to allege

facts to demonstrate that her case has merit, dismissal of this action with

prejudice is the appropriate
Accordingly, this day of March 2026, after weighing the above
factors, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED

with prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint as previously ordered.

BY THE COURT:

i

JUDGE JULIA K-MUNLE
United States District Goutt

{
|
|

4