Daniel Salvatierra v. Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1274
__________
DANIEL A. SALVATIERRA,
Appellant
v.
LAKE ERIE COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE,
also known as LECOM
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-23-cv-00152)
District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 5, 2024
Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 24, 2024)
___________
OPINION *
___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se Appellant Daniel A. Salvatierra filed an amended complaint in which he
brought a breach of contract claim against Defendant Lake Erie College of Osteopathic
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Medicine (“LECOM”). Salvatierra alleged that LECOM violated a contractual
agreement to provide him with both employment and graduate medical education in its
Internal Medicine Residency Program.
On June 26, 2023, LECOM filed a motion to dismiss. On July 11, 2023, the
District Court entered an order stating that Salvatierra’s response to the motion was due
by July 24, 2023. On January 5, 2024, having received no response from Salvatierra, the
District Court entered an order requiring him to show cause by January 11, 2024, as to
why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Consistent with this
order and in the absence of any filing from Salvatierra, on January 12, 2024, the District
Court entered a two-sentence order dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to Poulis
v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of
discretion a district court’s order dismissing a case under Poulis. Emerson v. Thiel Coll.,
296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002). “While we defer to the District Court’s discretion,
dismissal with prejudice is only appropriate in limited circumstances and doubts should
be resolved in favor of reaching a decision on the merits.” Id. We have emphasized that
dismissal is an “extreme” measure, and therefore “must be a sanction of last, not first,
resort.” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868–69. In Poulis, we discussed six factors that a district
court must consider when faced with the prospect of dismissing a case for failure to meet
procedural requirements: “(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 history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party . . . was
2
willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which
entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim.” Id.
at 868. We have further held that a district court must make explicit findings regarding
these factors. See Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987); see also
United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 161–62 (3d Cir. 2003).
We must therefore determine whether the District Court properly evaluated these factors
and whether the record supports its findings. Livera v. First Nat’l State Bank of N.J., 879
F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152 (3d Cir. 1988)).
In the case at hand, the order of dismissal is deficient because, after mentioning
Salvatierra’s failure to respond before the close of the one-week deadline, the District
Court merely cites to Poulis and does not provide any analysis of the factors presented in
that case, much less an explicit explanation of its findings. See id. at 1188. In light of
this deficiency, we must therefore remand the case to the District Court for explicit
consideration of the Poulis factors. See id. Although LECOM argues that “a balancing
of the Poulis factors supports the District Court’s decision,” we will not conduct our own
Poulis analysis as it would necessitate factual findings beyond the parameters of our
review. See id. at 1194. For a similar reason, we will not consider LECOM’s alternative
argument that affirmance is warranted because Salvatierra has not pleaded a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order, and
remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. We take no position on the
merits of Salvatierra’s case and caution him against any further failure to respond to the
orders of the District Court.
3