Perez v. Harry et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNNY PEREZ,
Plaintiff
V.
LAUREL HARRY, et al.,
Defendants
Civil No . 3:25-cv-2134
(Judge Mariani)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a prose civil action, initiated upon the filing of a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). 	Plaintiff, Johnny Perez, alleged that Defendants-18 prison
officials at the State Correction Institution , Camp, Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill")-violated a
multitude of his rights, including violation of equal protection, violation of due process ,
conspiracy, cruel and unusual punishment, defamation, harassment, violation of the code of
ethics, violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, violation of the State
Adverse Interest Act, and violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id . at 2, 7) .
On January 5, 2026, the Court conducted the required statutory screening of
Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Docs. 10, 11). Upon conducting this
initial statutorily mandated screening, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
dismissing Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), but granted him leave to file an amended complaint.
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 15 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 4

(/d.) . In response, Plaintiff filed a proposed amended compla int against 19 prison officials at
SCI-Camp Hill. 	(Doc. 12) .
On February 19, 2026, the Court again conducted the required statutory screening of
Plaintiffs amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A . (Docs . 13, 14). Upon
conducting this statutorily mandated screening, the Court entered a Memorandum and
Order once again dismissing Plaintiffs amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1915A(b)(1 ). (Id.) . The Court granted
Pla intiff one fina l opportunity to file a second amended complaint. 	(Id .). Plaintiffs second
amended complaint was due on or before March 4, 2026. 	(Doc. 14). The time for filing a
second amended complaint has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a second amended
complaint. 	Nor has he requested an extension of time to do so .
Plaint iffs failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this Court 's
Order "makes adjudication of the case impossib le." Azubuko v. Bell Nat '/ Org., 243 F. App'x
728 , 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (nonprecedential); see also Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill , 252 F. App'x
436 , 438 (3d Cir . 2007) (nonprecedent ial) (upholding the dismissal of a prose plaintiffs
complaint with prejudice for ·failure to amend his complaint). 	Further, a balance of the six
factors enumerated in Pou/is v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co ., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir . 1984)
dictates dismissal of the action . The six factors are as follows:
(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
2
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 15 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 4

dismissal , which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions ; and (6) the
meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
Pou/is , 747 F.2d at 868 (emphasis omitted) . "[N]ot all of the Pou/is factors need be
sat isfied ... to dismiss a complaint." Mindek v. Rigatti , 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir . 1992)
(citation omitted).
First, there is no doubt that Plaintiff , as a prose litigant , has the ultimate and sole
responsibility to prosecute his claims and to comply with Court Orders. 	Second, Plaintiffs
failure to communicate with the Court and to comply with a Court Order frustrates any
progressive forward movement. This failure to communicate clearly prejudices the
Defendants' ability to achieve a timely resolution of the case . Third , Plaintiff has established
a history of dilatoriness through his failure to comply with a Court Order . As to the fourth
factor , "[w]illfulness involves intentional or self-serving behavior. " Adams v. Trustees of N.J .
Brewery Emps. ' Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 875 (3d Cir. 1994). Plaintiff bears
responsibility for the dilatory behavior as he is solely responsible for the lack of
communication with the Court and the failure to file an amended pleading, as ordered . Fifth ,
the effectiveness of alternative sanctions weighs in favor of dismissal, as no viable
alternative to dismissa l ex ists given the absence of an operative pleading in this matter.
And , finally, the meritor iousness of Plaintiffs claims weighs towards dismissal, as the
complaint and amended complaint were sub ject to initial screening and were dismissed by
3
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 15 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 4

the Court . (Docs . 10, 11, 13, 14). Thus , following a full analysis of the Pou/is factors, the
scale tips heavily in favor of dismissal of this action.
Accordingly , the Court will dismiss the above-captioned action and direct the Clerk of
Court to close the action. A separate Order follows.
United States District Judge
4
Case 3:25-cv-02134-RDM-CA Document 15 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 4