TALLEY v. SANDUSKY et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNSTOWN DIVISION
QUINTEZ TALLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JERRY SANDUSKY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00183
United States District Judge
Stephanie L. Haines
United States Magistrate Judge
Christopher B. Brown
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Christopher B. Brown, United States Magistrate Judge
I. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended the Court dismiss
this civil rights action for failure to prosecute.
II. 	REPORT
On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff, Quintez Talley who is incarcerated and
proceeding pro se, filed a complaint but did not pay the requisite filing fee nor
submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. He later filed an
IFP motion which was recommended to be denied as he was three-struck. ECF No.
5. The recommendation was later adopted by the District Court and appealed by
Talley. ECF No. 9. On February 26, 2025, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated the District Court’s Order and remanded the matter for further
proceedings. ECF No. 21.
Case 3:19-cv-00183-NBF-CBB Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 6

2
On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff was granted IFP status and his Complaint was
lodged. ECF Nos. 25, 27. On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff, Quintez Talley, was ordered to
provide the Court on or before June 9, 2025, with proper instructions for service
upon each defendant listed in the Complaint, including a U.S. Marshal Form 285
for each defendant, a completed notice and waiver of summons for each defendant,
and a copy of the complaint for each defendant. ECF No. 28. To date, Talley has
been granted two extensions to provide the required service documents to the Court.
ECF Nos. 30 and 32. The last Order filed on June 27, 2025, extended the deadline
to July 21, 2025. ECF No. 32. The Order was sent to Talley’s listed address of
record, and to the address reflected on the DOC Inmate Locator website, and has
not been returned as undeliverable. 1 The July 21, 2025, deadline passed over four
months ago and Talley has not provided the Court with either the required service
documents or has he sought an extension of time in which to do so.
On September 25, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause by
October 27, 2025 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with
the Court Order dated June 27, 2025. ECF No. 34. Talley was advised that
failure to comply with this Order may result in the recommendation that this
case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id.
1 	Talley’s last motion seeking an extension to submit the service documents indicated he was
housed at SCI Camp Hill. ECF No. 31. A review of the PA DOC Inmate Locator reflects that Talley
is now housed at SCI-Albion. See https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov/#/Result (last viewed 11/24/2025).
A copy of this Order will be mailed to Talley at both addresses. Talley is reminded of his continuing
obligation to notify the Court of any change of address by filing a separate document entitled “Notice
of Change of Address.” ECF No. 2.
Case 3:19-cv-00183-NBF-CBB Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 6

3
The October 27, 2025 deadline has now passed and Talley has not responded
to the Order to Show Cause. In fact, the Court has not received any submission
from Talley since June 26, 2025, when he filed a motion to extend time. ECF No.
31.
B. 	Discussion
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the involuntary
dismissal of an action or a claim, and, under this rule, a District Court has the
authority to dismiss an action suit sponte if a litigant fails to prosecute or to comply
with the court order. See, e.g., Adams v. Trs. of New Jersey Brewery Employees’
Pension Tr. Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 871 (3d Cir. 1994). In Poulis v. State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
set forth the following six factors to be weighed in considering whether dismissal is
proper under Rule 41(b):
(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 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
meritorious of the claim or defense.
Id. at 868 (emphasis omitted). 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 of the
six factors need to weigh in favor of dismissal before dismissal is warranted. Hicks
v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1998). Rather, the Court must properly
Case 3:19-cv-00183-NBF-CBB Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 6

4
consider and balance each of the six factors based on the record. Hildebrand v.
Allegheny Cnty., 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868).
The first, third, and fourth Poulis factors (the extent of Talley’s personal
responsibility, his history of dilatoriness, and whether his conduct is willful) each
weigh heavily against him. He did not comply with the Court’s orders of June 27,
2025 or September 25, 2025, and has not communicated with the Court in any
manner since June 26, 2025.
The second Poulis factor assesses whether the adverse party has suffered
prejudice because of the dilatory party’s behavior. Here, there appears to be no
specific prejudice to Defendants other than general delay caused by Talley’s
continued failure to complete the steps necessary to have his Complaint served.
Therefore, this factor should not be weighed against Talley. Similarly, the sixth
Poulis factor (the meritoriousness of his claim) should not be weighed either in favor
or against Talley. All the Court has before it at this time are the allegations
complained in the Complaint, ECF No. 27, to which Defendants have not had the
opportunity to respond since Talley has not taken the necessary steps for the
Complaint to be served. Therefore the Court does not have enough information at
this stage to determine whether Talley might ultimately prevail on his claims.
Finally, the fifth Poulis factor requires the Court to consider the effectiveness
of sanctions other than dismissal. Under the circumstances presented here, where
Talley has not responded to the Court’s orders and appears to have no interest in
pursuing this case, alternative sanctions would not be effective. Bowie v. Perry, No.
Case 3:19-cv-00183-NBF-CBB Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 6

5
1:19-cv-13, 2019 WL 2412488, *2 (W.D. Pa. May 13, 2019) (“alternative sanctions
are unlikely to be effective against a party who refuses to communicate with the
Court.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2410796 (W.D. Pa. July 7,
2019). As such, this factor, along with the majority of the Poulis factors, weighs in
favor of dismissal.
III. 	Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that this civil
rights action be dismissed due to Talley’s failure to prosecute.
Talley is permitted to file written specific Objections to this Report and
Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, written objections, if
any, to this Report and Recommendation are due by December 18, 2025. Talley is
cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right
to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011)(quoting
Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). See also 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).
So ORDERED this 1st day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/Christopher B. Brown
Christopher B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:19-cv-00183-NBF-CBB Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 5 of 6

6
cc: 	QUINTEZ TALLEY
KT 5091
SCI CAMP HILL
P.O. Box 8837
2500 Lisburn Road
Camp Hill, PA 17001
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
QUINTEZ TALLEY
KT 5091
SCI ALBION
10745 Route 18
Albion, PA 1647-0001
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
Case 3:19-cv-00183-NBF-CBB Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 6 of 6