Charles Sample v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES SAMPLE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., NO. 19-51

Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of December 2025, upon consideration of the Motion for Sanctions, (Dkt. No. 21), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED, and all claims against the City of Philadelphia and Officers Brown, Carlos Buitrago, Galazka, Cleaver, Charlse Kapusniak, and Thomas Kuhn are DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. Sample shall, on or before January 20, 2026, file on the docket a report

on the status of the case against Officers Jeffrey Walker, Jones, and Passalacqua or voluntarily dismiss all purported claims against them.1

1 Although the Court can dismiss a case sua sponte, see Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 341 (3d Cir. 1982), it should provide the plaintiff an opportunity to explain his reasons for failing to prosecute the case or complying with courts orders before doing so, see Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 258 (3d Cir. 2008). There is no indication that Officers Jeffrey Walker, Jones, or Passalacqua were ever served and no attorney has entered an appearance on any of their behalves. The Amended Complaint makes no allegations of their personal involvement in any wrongful conduct. They are (presumably) included in generic references to “Defendant Officers.” Sample has had sufficient opportunity to gather facts surrounding their involvement, if any, in his arrest and conviction. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald J. Pappert Gerald J. Pappert, J.