COIT v. PA DOC, et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLH-MPK Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1of7

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

KEVIN COIT,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-198]

District Judge Stephanie L. Haines
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Vv.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LAUREL HARRY,

et al., Re: ECF No. 2

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

IL RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Amended Complaint filed in the above-captioned
case, ECF No. 2, be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
II. REPORT

Plaintiff Kevin Coit (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of ‘the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections. On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff lodged a Complaint against over 30
prison guards and officials, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and Governor Josh
Shapiro, but he did not submit a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis or payment of the
required filing fee. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff lodged an Amended Complaint on September 19, 2024.
ECF No. 2.

Because Plaintiff failed to submit the required paperwork, the Court entered a Deficiency
Order on September 18, 2024, directing the Plaintiff to complete a form motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, file a Consent to Magistrate Judge form, and provide the necessary documents to
serve his Complaint. ECF No. 3. That same day, the Court entered a Standing Practice Order for

Pro Se Civil Rights Cases which, in part, notified the Plaintiff of his continuing obligation to

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLH-MPK Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 7

update the Court with any change of address, and to comply with all Court orders as directed.
ECF No. 4.

Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on October 11, 2024, and
submitted completed service forms for each defendant on October 22, 2024. ECF No. 6.
However, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Deficiency Order because by failing to
submit copies of the Amended Complaint for each named defendant. Accordingly, on October
30, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed. ECF
No. 11.

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement the Complaint on November 18, 2024.
ECF No. 12. On December 4, 2024, this Court issued a second Order to Show Cause as to why
this case should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Deficiency Order.
ECF No. 13. Plaintiff’s response was due on or before January 3, 2025. Id. at 1.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on May 12, 2025. ECF No. 16. That appeal was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on November 17, 2025. ECF No. 19.

Additionally, in a related case suffering from similar filing deficiencies, Plaintiff
indicated that he would not make service copies of the complaint in that matter. ECF No. 9 at 1,

Coit v. Sup’t Close, No. 24-94] (W.D. Pa. filed Apr. 30, 2024). Despite having been explicitly

informed that the Court would accept legible handwritten service copies of the complaint. ECF
No. 10 at 1, No. 24-94J. Plaintiff refused, to submit service copies, resulting in dismissal of that
case for failure to prosecute. ECF Nos. 25 and 28, No. 24-94].

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s second Order to Show Cause, nor has
he submitted copies of the Amended Complaint for service on the defendants in the instant

matter.

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLH-MPK Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3of7

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has identified a six-factor
balancing test to guide a court in determining whether a case should be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). The court must

consider: 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 or 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. Id. at 868. There is no “magic formula” or
“mechanical calculation” to determine whether a case should be dismissed for failure to

prosecute, Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992), and not all six factors need to

support dismissal before dismissal is warranted. Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152 (3d Cir. 1988).

Rather, the court must “properly consider and balance” each of the six factors based on the

record. See Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Poulis, 747

F.2d at 868).
“Dismissal with prejudice is an ‘extreme’ sanction” that should be employed as a “last,

not first, resort.” Hildebrand, 923 F.3d at 132 (quoting Nat’] Hockey League v. Metro Hockey

Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976), and Poulis, 747 F.2d at 867, 869). A close case should “be

resolved in favor of reaching a decision on the merits.” Id. (citing Adams v. Trs. of the N.J.

Brewery Emps.’ Pension Tr. Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 870 (3d Cir. 1994)). Nevertheless, “[d]ismissal is

a sanction rightfully in the district courts’ toolbox,” and the Third Circuit “has not hesitated to

affirm the district court’s imposition of sanctions, including dismissals in appropriate cases.” Id.

(citing Poulis, 747 F.2d at 867 n.1).

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLH-MPK Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 7

The first Poulis factor requires the Court to consider the extent to which the dilatory party

is personally responsible for the sanctionable conduct. See Adams, 29 F.3d at 873 (“[I]n
determining whether dismissal is appropriate, we look to whether the party bears personal
responsibility for the action or inaction which led to the dismissal.”). Because Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, he is solely responsible for his own conduct, including his failure to respond

to orders from the Court. See, e.g., Colon v. Karnes, No. 1:11-cv-1704, 2012 WL 383666, at *3

(M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012) (“Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and thus is responsible for his own
actions.”). This factor weighs heavily in favor of dismissal.

The second Poulis factor assesses whether the adverse party has suffered prejudice
because of the dilatory party’s behavior. Relevant concerns include “the irretrievable loss of
evidence, the inevitable dimming of witnesses’ memories[,] the excessive and possibly
irremediable burdens or costs imposed on the opposing party,” Adams, 29 F.3d at 874, and “the
burden imposed by impeding a party’s ability to prepare effectively a full and complete trial

strategy.” Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2003). At this stage of the

litigation, there is a lack of explicit evidence of prejudice because the adverse parties have not
yet been served with proper paperwork due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Deficiency
Order from the Court. ECF No. 13.

The third factor, “history of dilatoriness,” also weighs heavily against Plaintiff. As
explained, Plaintiff has failed to fully respond to the Deficiency Order, ECF No. 3, nor has he
responded to the Order to Show Cause that was entered December 4, 2024. ECF No. 13.
Additionally — and importantly — Plaintiff has failed to provide copies of the Amended
Complaint for service on the host of defendants that he wishes to sue. Thus, Plaintiff has

engaged in dilatory conduct that serves to unnecessarily delay resolution of this matter.

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLH-MPK Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page5of7

As for the fourth Poulis factor, “[w]illfulness involves intentional or self-serving
behavior.” Adams, 29 F.3d at 874. In this case, there is nothing on the docket to suggest that
Plaintiff is unable to respond to Court orders. Instead, Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter, as well as
in Civil Action No. 24-94J, indicate that he simply does not want to make copies of the Amended
Complaint for the many defendants hat he has named. Thus, his failure to comply with the
Court’s orders appears willful.

The fifth factor addresses the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal. Poulis, 747
F.2d at 869. It is well-established that monetary sanctions are ineffective where the Plaintiff is

indigent. See, e.g., Brennan v. Clouse, No. 11-146, 2012 WL 876228, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14,

2012) (“Alternative sanctions, such as monetary penalties, are inappropriate as sanctions with

indigent pro se parties.”) (citing Emerson vy. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2002)). As

such, this factor weighs heavily in favor of dismissal.

Finally, the Court must consider the potential merit of Plaintiff’s claims. 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. However, the Plaintiff has failed to comply
with the Court’s orders and delayed the litigation of his case. Thus, the Court does not have a
basis to evaluate the potential merit of his claims.

On balance, the Court concludes that at least four of the six Poulis factors support
dismissal, with the remaining factor (merits of Plaintiff’s claims) not weighed against or in favor
of dismissal. Nevertheless, “[n]ot all these factors need to be met for a district court to find

dismissal is warranted.” Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1988). While the Court is

mindful of the strong policy for deciding cases on the merits, such a resolution is impossible

when the plaintiff declines to participate in his own lawsuit. Consequently, the Court concludes

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLH-MPK Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 6 of 7

that on the record presented here, the extreme sanction of dismissal is supported by the Poulis
factors.
I. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that this action be
dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.D.2 of
the Local Rules of Court, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with
the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and
Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District
Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will

waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any

party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days

thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.

Dated: December / 0 , 2025 Respectfully submitted,

MAURSENP. KEVLY NX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: The Honorable Stephanie L. Haines
United States District Judge

Kevin Coit

QQ6730

SCI Greene

169 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLH-MPK Document 21 Filed 12/10/25 Page 7 of 7

Kevin Coit

QQ6730

SCI Albion

10745 Route 18

Albion, PA 16475-0001