Donald Dargan v. Blair County, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00148
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD DARGAN, : Plaintiff : v. : Case No. 3:24-cv-148-SLH-KAP BLAIR COUNTY, et al., : Defendants :

Report and Recommendation

Recommendation I recommend that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This is being filed as a recommendation because pre- service dismissal is appropriate, and it would be wasteful to proceed with this case to determine whether all parties would consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Report Plaintiff, according to the public docket maintained by the state courts, is charged in several cases pending in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas, and in at least one is awaiting sentencing after being tried earlier this year. See Commonwealth v. Dargan, Case no. CP-07-CR-681-2022 (C.P.Blair). In July 2024 plaintiff filed a five-page handwritten document, loosely describing his involvement in criminal proceedings in Blair County, that from its prayer for monetary relief appeared to be intended as a civil complaint. ECF no. 1. I administratively closed this matter on July 10, 2024, ECF no. 2, advising plaintiff that it would remain administratively closed until plaintiff paid the filing fee or a valid motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff did neither, instead filing documents at intervals over the last year that can be construed as supplements to the complaint or as a motion to amend the complaint. This is not the first time plaintiff has done this. See Dargan v Houston, No. 3:22-cv-22-SLH (W.D.Pa. December 6, 2023)(dismissing complaint for failure to prosecute). The complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The six-factor analysis of Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1984) and Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir.2019), is superfluous because there is a statutory command requiring a filing fee or valid motion to proceed in forma pauperis from plaintiffs. Plaintiff cannot continue to use the Clerk’s Office as a free storage cabinet for his paperwork. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties are given notice that they have fourteen days to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties are 1 advised that in the absence of timely and specific objections any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See 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). i040 DATE:_ September 30, 2025 Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge Notice by U.S. Mail to: Donald D. Dargan #0701052 Blair County Prison 419 Market Square Alley Hollidaysburg, PA 16648