HAWES v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS JOHN HAWES, 	:
Plaintiff 	:
v. 	: Case No. 3:25-cv-384-KAP
PRIME CARE MEDICAL, et al., 	:
Defendants 	:
Report and Recommendation
Recommendation
I recommend that the complaint in the above matter be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(b) for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. This is
being filed as a recommendation because pre-service dismissal is appropriate, and it
would be wasteful to proceed with this case to attempt to determine whether all parties
would consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
Report
Plaintiff Hawes, according to the public docket maintained by the state courts, has
a lengthy record of criminal cases in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas, the most
recent of which finished with Hawes being sentenced on his negotiated guilty plea on
August 	11, 	2025 	to 	an 	aggregate 	term 	of 	11½-23½ 	months 	imprisonment. 	See
Commonwealth v. Hawes, Case No. CP-07-CR-2579-2024 (C.P.Blair).
At the end of October 2025 Hawes submitted a two and a half-page handwritten
undated civil complaint naming “Prime Care Medical,” “Blair County Medical Staff,” and
“Blair County Prison Officials” as defendants and complaining that he believed he was
injured because “med staff” had prescribed him “cynthroid [sic, possibly synthroid]” since
his incarceration in November 2024. Hawes alleges that he believed that to be the “wrong
medication,” and that he had swelling in his legs in September 2025 that stopped when
he “removed himself from the meds.” Hawes seeks $5 million for his pain and suffering.
I administratively closed the case until plaintiff’s provided a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis that complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That notice was
returned on November 19, 2025 with the notation that plaintiff was no longer at the Blair
County Prison. Nothing has been heard from plaintiff, including a change of address.
The six-factor analysis commanded by Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.,
747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1984) and Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 132
(3d Cir.2019), dictates that this matter be dismissed without prejudice. The six factors
Case 3:25-cv-00384-NBF-KAP Document 5 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 3

2
prescribed by Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. are (1) the extent of the party’s
personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary; (3) any history of delay; (4)
whether the conduct of the party or attorney at fault was willful or in bad faith; (5) the
effectiveness of alternative sanctions; and (6) the merit of the claim or defense. The Court
is very familiar with the application of those factors to litigation commenced and
abandoned by plaintiffs. See e.g. Dargan v Houston, No. 3:22-cv-22-SLH (W.D.Pa.
December 6, 2023)(dismissing complaint for failure to prosecute).
As a pro se litigant, Hawes personally bears total responsibility for conducting his
litigation. Hawes’ failure to keep the Clerk advised of his whereabouts cannot in absence
of other explanation be considered willful, it may simply be negligence. Inert litigation
mostly burdens the court, but if there were a viable claim in the complaint it is likely that
the erosion of memories and evidence normal with the passage of time would add to the
costs of defense for the defendants. Cost shifting or other alternative sanctions that
amount to monetary penalties are inappropriate with a plaintiff who claims to be indigent.
Finally and most importantly, while the merits of any claim by any plaintiff against
any defendant are impossible to appraise even on sufficient pleadings, the complaint is
wholly inadequate to state a claim. Hawes asserts that he suffered some swelling in
September, concludes from his own observations that there was some connection of the
swelling with the medication he had been taking for most of the previous year because the
swelling went away when he made the independent decision to stop taking his prescribed
medication, and demands $5 million from three institutional defendants. He makes no
attempt to allege that some individual not only made a medication error but was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976) (elements of a deliberate indifference claim.) Where he provides any factual
allegations at all, those allegations -that a nurse told him he was taking the right
medication and that if he stopped taking it he would die - contradicts a claim. If a medical
provider believes she is proceeding properly but is wrong, that may allow a negligence
claim in state court, but a deliberate indifference claim requires plausible allegations of
fact allowing the conclusion that a defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety.” 	Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (my
emphasis).
It is not necessary that all the Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Hicks v.
Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir.1988). The sanction for failure to prosecute must
balance the Court’s need to control its own docket against the primary goal of disposing
of litigation on its merits, see In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 718
F.3d 236, 246 (3d Cir.2013). When a plaintiff’s failure to pursue his own complaint makes
that goal impossible unless the Court practices law for that plaintiff, the complaint should
be dismissed. Because Hawes is within the limitations period for any claim he might have
Case 3:25-cv-00384-NBF-KAP Document 5 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 3

3
intended the dismissal should be without prejudice to starting over in a new case.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the plaintiff is given notice at his last address
that he has fourteen days to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Parties are advised that in the absence of timely and specific objections any appeal would
be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d
93, 100 (3d Cir.2017)(describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific
objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).
DATE: 	November 20, 2025
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice by U.S. Mail to:
Thomas J. Hawes 14-01095
Blair County Prison
419 Market Square Alley
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648
Case 3:25-cv-00384-NBF-KAP Document 5 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 3