GEORGE v. TRANSUNION CORP.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-04967
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

NYGERIA U. GEORGE, : Plaintiff :

v. CIVIL ACTION NO, 22-CV-4967 TRANSUNION CORP., ef ai., Defendants :

Ae Co ORDER AND NOW, this,/ (day of December, 2022, upon consideration of Plaintiff Nygeria U. George’s Motion to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 2), it is ORDERED that: 1, Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 2. The Complaint is DEEMED filed, 3. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons in the Court’s Memorandum, 4, Ms. George may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Any amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption of the amended complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the amended complaint and shall state the basis for Ms. George’s claims against each defendant. The amended complaint shall be a complete document that does not rely on the initial Complaint or other papers filed in this case to state a claim. When drafting her amended complaint, Ms. George should be mindful of the Court’s reasons for dismissing the claims in her initial Complaint as explained in the Court’s

Memorandum, Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until so ORDERED by the Court. 5, The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Ms. George a blank copy of this Court’s current standard form to be used by a self-represented litigant filing a civil action bearing the above-captioned civil action number. Ms. George may use this form to file her amended complaint if she chooses to do so.! 6. If Ms. George does not wish to amend her Complaint and instead intends to stand on her Complaint as originally pled, she may file a notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019); In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig,, 90 F.3d 696, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1996).

' This form is available on the Court’s website at http://www. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

7. If Ms. George fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that Ms. George intends to stand on her Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.” See Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40. BY THE COURT: Jha Cheah CGENE EK. PRATTER, J.

* The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff's intention to stand on her complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint” doctrine as distinct from dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order, which require assessment of the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v. Altria, 799 F. App’x 107, 108 n.1 Gd Cir. 2020) (er curiam), An analysis under Poulis is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her complaint, leaving the case without an operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 F, App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff's conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiffs behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case impossible, a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Memt., Inc., 292 F.R.D, 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“[T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes adjudication of the matter impossible.” (citing cases)).