ROMAN v. NOGAN
2:23-cv-01512
D.N.J.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Juan Roman, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District of New Jersey.
- Plaintiff’s initial complaint and in forma pauperis (IFP) application were received March 2023; the IFP was denied, and the case administratively closed.
- After refiling and being granted IFP status, the initial complaint was dismissed without prejudice in April 2023 for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend by May 17, 2023.
- Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint until May 2024, nearly a year late, and failed to respond to a December 2024 Order to Show Cause regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- The Court evaluated whether to dismiss with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), applying the Poulis factors for such dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to prosecute | Not stated | Not stated | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Compliance with court orders | No timely action | No timely action | Plaintiff solely responsible |
| Consideration of alternative sanctions | No response | No response | Lesser sanctions not appropriate |
| Prejudice to defendants | Not served | Not served | Factor neutral; no apparent harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (Rule 41(b) empowers courts to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute on their own initiative)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (sets out six-factor test for dismissals under Rule 41(b))
- Adams v. Trustees of New Jersey Brewery Employees’ Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863 (3d Cir. 1994) (repeated or extensive delay constitutes dilatoriness)