United States District Court, District of Delaware
CALVIN O. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff,
CAREER TEAM, Defendant.
Calvin O. Griffin, Bear, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Geoffrey Graham Grivner, Esquire, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant.
STARK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Calvin O. Griffin ("Plaintiff) proceeds pro se and has paid the filing fee. He alleges employment discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 on the basis of gender. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. (D.I. 15) For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 24, 2012. (D.I. 2) He alleges employment discrimination on the basis of gender when his employment was terminated by Defendant on March 15, 2010. On September 7, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve. (D.I. 6) Plaintiff sought additional time and Defendant was ultimately served on July 1, 2013, and answered the Complaint on August 12, 2013. Plaintiff has taken no action since April 26, 2013, when he sought the additional time to effect service upon Defendant. (D.I. 9)
Defendant moves for dismissal for failure to prosecute. (D.I. 15) Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action "[fjor failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules] or any order of court. . . ." Although dismissal is an extreme sanction that should only be used in limited circumstances, dismissal is appropriate if a party fails to prosecute the action. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, Al F.3d 1311, 1330 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Court considers the following factors to determine whether dismissal is warranted:
(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 histoty of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of other sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. See Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 1A1 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); see also Emerson v. ThielColL, 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002); Huertas v. United States Dep't ofEduc, 408 F.App'x 639 (3d Cir. Dec. 13, 2010).
The Court must balance the factors and may dismiss the action even if all of them do not weigh against Plaintiff. See Emerson, 296 F.3d at 190. Because dismissal for failure to prosecute involves a factual inquiry, it can be appropriate even if some of the Poulis factors are not satisfied. See Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1998); Curtis T. Bedwell & Sons, Inc. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 843 ...