BUTLER v. WILSON
2:23-cv-01976-JMY
| E.D. Pa. | Jun 5, 2023Background
- Pro se prisoner-plaintiff Alfred Butler filed a civil complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the complaint was deemed filed.
- The Court granted IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and ordered payment of the $350 filing fee in monthly installments from Butler’s inmate trust account.
- The Court screened Butler’s complaint and dismissed all federal constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice.
- The Court dismissed Butler’s state-law claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Butler was given 30 days to file an amended complaint limited to reasserting any state-law claims; he was expressly prohibited from reasserting the federal claims dismissed with prejudice.
- The Court explained that if Butler elects to “stand on” his original complaint or fails to respond, the Court will enter a final dismissal (and that the Poulis six‑factor analysis is not required where a plaintiff elects to stand on the complaint).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP and fee assessment | Butler sought leave to proceed IFP | Not addressed in opinion | IFP granted; initial 20% assessment and monthly 20% installments ordered under § 1915(b). |
| Viability of federal §1983 claims | Butler asserted federal constitutional claims against defendant | Not addressed in opinion | Federal §1983 claims dismissed with prejudice after screening. |
| State-law claims and jurisdiction | Butler asserted state-law claims alongside federal claims | Not addressed in opinion | State-law claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Opportunity to amend / "stand on complaint" | Butler may amend to replead state claims within 30 days or stand on original complaint | Not addressed in opinion | Court allowed amendment limited to state claims; warned that standing on the original complaint or failing to respond will lead to final dismissal without Poulis analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (explains "stand on the complaint" doctrine and that inaction can be treated as intent to stand).
- Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1976) (discusses notice to stand on complaint).
- In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 1996) (affirms dismissal with prejudice after plaintiffs decline to replead when warned).
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (announces six-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute; distinct from "stand on the complaint" doctrine).
- Dickens v. Danberg, [citation="700 F. App'x 116"] (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (dismissal appropriate where plaintiff willfully abandons a case).
- Elansari v. Altria, [citation="799 F. App'x 107"] (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (treats "stand on the complaint" doctrine as distinct from Rule 41(b) dismissals).
- Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 292 F.R.D. 171 (D.N.J. 2013) (observes Poulis need not apply when plaintiff willfully abandons case).